To stop 'anti-vaxxers,' scientific data must be presented in accessible format

After gaining admission into and enrolling in Tufts, there was one last crucial form to fill out before we could matriculate: We had to show proof we had been vaccinated. For many students, getting vaccinated was something routine that we probably gave little thought. It’s just one of those things that everyone just does, like going to the dentist or getting yearly check-ups. However, contrary to the norm, and to most of our experiences with vaccination, there has been a growing resistance movement to vaccines, stating that they're unnatural, or claiming links between vaccination and autism. This issue has recently come to the forefront with events like the recent outbreak of measles linked to Disneyland in California. Although the topic of vaccination seemingly falls under the right of individuals to make their own choices, the choice to avoid vaccination provides an element of community risk, as those who are unvaccinated can spread their illnesses to those who are vulnerable, since vaccines are not 100 percent effective.

The roots of this resistance movement stem from British doctor Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 study that claims a relationship between autism and the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine. Although the study was refuted and discredited by numerous subsequent researchers, and Wakefield even has his license revoked by British medical authorities, its findings still serve as the evidence for people who resist vaccines. One of the most prominent figures in this movement is talk show host and model Jenny McCarthy, who has on numerous occasions implied that she believes her son’s autism is linked to the MMR vaccine. Due to her celebrity status, she has naturally gained a large following, causing many mothers to choose not to vaccinate their kids despite the fact that there is absolutely no scientific backing to McCarthy’s anecdotal theories.

While it is easy to point fingers at ignorant celebrities like McCarthy, the real reasons for this vaccine resistance are the media’s thirst for controversy and a lack of scientific literacy among the public. As a form of media we often want to run stories that get talked about or have a larger impact, yet as shown in the vaccine dilemma, this practice can have many negative repercussions. These "hype" stories and scare-tactics practiced by media outlets are much more detrimental than simply getting people talking; they spread misinformation and lies.

Simple stories like one doctor’s small, unverified study can gain a lot of attention if they can be made to fit in the partisan debate or have celebrities endorsing them. This is a common phenomenon, as the media will often sensationalize things to gain more readers and viewers, not necessarily by omitting facts but by only providing those that fit their agenda and limiting their variety of viewpoints. Why are Jenny McCarthy’s op-eds being published and interviews being majorly broadcast instead of those of actual epidemiologists and public health officials?

The problem here could also lie in the fact that there is a major disparity between the language of science and our everyday vernacular. When a Jenny McCarthy speaks, her words go straight to the hearts of concerned mothers everywhere, but when a scientist speaks, his or her terminology seems cold and over the heads of many.

Thus, there are lessons to be learned for both publications and the public. As a publication, we need to be constantly aware of our power to manipulate public opinion, especially in times of shock or crisis when there is little room for skepticism. We need to make sure to give coverage of a range of viewpoints and always provide the facts so our audience can determine the truth. On the other hand, as a public, we need to strive to become scientifically literate so that we know that making a vaccine “safer” doesn’t mean it isn’t already safe.