The decline of the scientic method?

[shiningpearl]

Just ran across some interesting articles/studies and thought I would share.  They aren't about vaccinations, but what they have to say definitely do affect the Proof that is given for reasons to or not to vaccinate, or the safety and effectiveness that is claimed in studies that are PUBLISHED.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

One is from a few years ago, but I found it interesting to read in addition to the article from last December.

[mamakah]

Great links. Thanks!

[annjo]

These are great articles! I read an the article about John Ionnidis in the Atlantic earlier this year, and I found it really fascinating. It is a great reminder that "science" is unavoidably human. 

[sandygottstein]

Those of you have not seen it yet might be interested in my latest column:

The Attempted Hijacking of “Science” by the Ultra Pro-Vaccine Crowd

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/20110921TheAttemptedHijackingGottsteinS

All the best,

Sandy

[annjo]

Thanks so much Sandy. The use of the term "science" of late is very troubling. I am very wary when I see it used in this way.

A recent infuriating example from the New York Times regarding the Michelle Bachman HPV comments:

"The issue pushes many buttons with conservatives: overreach of government in health care decisions, suspicion that sex education leads to promiscuity and even the belief — debunked by science — that childhood vaccinations may be linked to mental disorders."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/politics/republican-candidates-battle-over-hpv-vaccine.html

What does that mean?

[sandygottstein]

annjo, What does that mean, indeed?

[BeckyBird]

This is their talking point. They say debunked, and it is repeated by all the parents. Did the parents research if it was really debunked, and how? No, since the news said so, then it must be true.

[Jugs]

I guess its simplistic way of saying science does not support a causation link. The trouble is that the phrase is dismissive and doesn't encourage discussion.

[Xerxella]

Very interesting articles shining pearl. 

Thank you. 

[sandygottstein]

Those who say the science does not support a causation link are very selective about what they call "science" and tend to dismiss or ignore that which doesn't support concerns about vaccination.  And they do not appear at all concerned about the influence industry has on what does get studied and published.

[annjo]

Agreed! Investigation of hypotheses regarding vaccine safety do not occur in a setting of free scientific inquiry. The scientific method isn't even relevant if QUESTIONS ARE NEVER ASKED. Even setting aside the very significant issue of funding, only a very brave--or maybe naive-- researcher would dare wander into this area. Reputations and careers can be lost. I'm sure the example that was made of Andrew Wakefield serves as a cautionary tale for any scientist--as I believe it was meant to.  Merely suggesting an association (NOT causation) between vaccination and autism (for example) immediately sets into motion the full force of the mainstream scientific community that will not hesitate to crush dissent.