The anti vaccination movement reflects a broader antiscience attitude.

Some people doubt science and experts. For example, the Donald Trump administration often showed a lack of respect for scientific expertise, especially on issues like climate change, evolution, and vaccination. However, a quick online search on any topic proves that we really do need science and experts.
The movement shows the danger of being hostile to science.
Some people, including famous individuals like Jenny McCarthy, who is a mother of a child with autism, wrongly believed that the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine causes autism. This led to a movement where celebrities and others spread fear about the MMR and other children's vaccines, which caught the media's attention.

Despite numerous studies worldwide showing no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the fear remains. As a result, some parents are choosing to delay or not vaccinate their children. Diseases like measles, which were once under control, are making a comeback. Before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, the disease infected three million children a year in the US, causing 500 deaths. By 2000, measles was declared eliminated in the US. However, in recent years, there have been outbreaks in states like California, Minnesota, and Ohio.

People should improve their understanding of the scientific method.

Throughout history, people have often been suspicious and fearful of science. For example, the story of Frankenstein shows how we worry that science might unleash uncontrollable forces. Unfortunately, some scientific discoveries, like atomic bombs and opioid drugs, have added to these fears.

However, it's important to remember that scientific progress over the last 300 years has greatly improved our lives. It has helped us move from a world full of deadly diseases to one where our average lifespan has nearly doubled.

To properly appreciate science, we need a better understanding of what it can and cannot do. Science doesn't have all the answers and is not a fixed set of facts. Instead, it's a process for discovering how the world works. Scientists start with a hypothesis, or a guess, about a phenomenon and then gather evidence to support or reject it. Their findings must be able to be repeated by others.

Scientific Claims

Evaluating scientific statements often requires special knowledge that most people don't have. For example, to know if a claim about vaccines is true, you would need to read a lot of research and understand areas like biology and statistics. Even scientists might not know all these fields, so they depend on expert groups who do. Nowadays, some people ignore experts and think they can find everything online, but that's not always enough

People trust speakers' credibility over their evidence.

When we don't know enough to judge a scientific claim, we often rely on whether we think the person making the claim is trustworthy. Unfortunately, we usually don't use very smart ways to decide this. Instead, we make quick decisions based on easy-to-see things, like if the person is charming. 

This is why famous people like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey could lead the movement against vaccines, even though they're not science experts. It's also why Andrew Wakefield, who looks good and speaks well, could become a key voice against vaccines, despite his research being proven wrong by other scientists.

Wakefield's Controversial MMR Vaccine Study

In 1998, Wakefield published a paper in The Lancet, a prestigious journal, summarizing his research on the MMR vaccine's effects on children. He claimed that the combined vaccine could “overwhelm” children's immune systems, leading to inflammation in the intestines. This, he suggested, could prevent the body from removing toxins, which would then travel to the brain, causing autism. Wakefield recommended administering the vaccines separately, even though separate vaccines were not available at the time, effectively suggesting that parents should avoid the MMR vaccine.

However, Wakefield's paper did not withstand scrutiny. He failed to conduct tests on his subjects that would have confirmed his theory of "immune dysfunction." He also did not test the intestinal biopsy samples to confirm the presence of "measles virus vaccine proteins." A decade later, Mady Hornig, a researcher at Columbia University, found no difference in the presence of measles vaccine virus in the intestinal biopsies of children with autism compared to those without.

Seventeen studies following Wakefield's research failed to replicate his results. In 2010, the General Medical Council in London reexamined Wakefield's paper and discovered "misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration" in all cases he reported. As a result, the GMC permanently banned him from practicing medicine in England. Shortly after, The Lancet withdrew Wakefield's paper.

False beliefs spread through human psychology, politics, and religion.

Despite scientific evidence disproving a link between vaccines and autism, many people still believe in this connection. This belief is influenced by various psychological and cultural factors:

• Difficulty in Assessing Risk: Our brains often use simple rules to evaluate risk, sometimes ignoring facts that contradict our beliefs. For instance, some people skip getting vaccinated against yellow fever, despite experts recommending it for travelers to certain regions where the disease is common. This decision stems from an exaggerated fear of rare adverse effects from the vaccine, even though the risk of contracting yellow fever and dying from it is much higher.
• Survival Instincts and Quick Explanations: In stressful situations, our brains prioritize finding quick explanations to gain a sense of control. This can lead to latching onto mistaken beliefs, like linking a child's vaccine shot to the development of autism. Our brain's survival mechanisms trigger fear responses, often before we have a chance to analyze whether the perceived link is meaningful or coincidental
• Media Bias Towards Conflict and Controversy: The news media, especially television, often prioritize conflict and controversy over the interests of science. They believe that these topics attract more viewers. According to a TV-news producer, finding "interesting" stories is more important than ensuring their accuracy. When producers invite experts to their shows, their goal is not always to provide information but to entertain. They select guest panelists to maximize drama and conflict. For example, during a discussion on Oprah, host Oprah Winfrey framed the conversation as a drama, with Jenny McCarthy as the hero, her son as the victim, and author Dr. Paul Offit as the villain. The show portrayed Offit as scoffing at McCarthy's maternal concerns.
• Political biases affect how people view scientific topics- The Trump administration, for example, has promoted anti science beliefs like doubts about vaccines, denial of climate change, and rejection of evolution. However, liberals also have biases, such as thinking that natural things are always good and chemicals are always bad.
• Religious biases also play a role in shaping attitudes- For instance, the debate over the HPV vaccine illustrates how religious beliefs can prevent people from recognizing real dangers. In the U.S., around 14 million people contract HPV annually through sexual contact, leading to types of cancer that kill 5,000 people each year. Experts recommend administering the HPV vaccine to boys and girls aged 11 to 13, before they become sexually active. However, compliance has been low, partly due to campaigns like that of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, which opposed the vaccine, fearing it would encourage promiscuity.

Scientists should actively educate the public.

Scientists have a duty to communicate with the public, especially in response to the antiscience movement. They can give talks, point out inaccuracies in news reports, and advise on movies with scientific themes.

However, scientists should be cautious when engaging in debates with anti science activists. While debates can help spread scientific facts, they also provide a platform for activists to spread their baseless beliefs. Debating settled science, like evolution or vaccine safety, is not productive. As comedian John Oliver humorously noted, debating such topics is akin to debating whether five or 15 is the higher number. By agreeing to debate on established facts, scientists may unintentionally suggest that the issue is still up for debate. This format can falsely portray the views of a subject expert and a layperson as equally valid.

Scientists and Public Engagement

Some scientists, like Bill Nye (“the Science Guy”), have effectively used debates to engage with the public. Their goal isn't to sway their opponents or the audience directly. For instance, Nye debates creationism at the Creation Museum, calmly explaining scientific theories to the millions watching on TV or YouTube.

Scientists who aim to combat misinformation and educate the public should be prepared for backlash, such as hate mail, lawsuits, harassment, and even death threats. One common strategy is to undermine a scientist's message on vaccination by accusing them of profiting from the vaccine and being a "shill" for the pharmaceutical industry.

The vaccine situation appears to be getting better.

Media interest in the anti vaccine movement has waned in recent years. This shift may be because activists' success in persuading parents to reject vaccines led to measles and mumps outbreaks. Over time, data has mounted showing vaccines are safe. Pro-science forces, including doctors, professors, and science bloggers, launched a strong counteroffensive. The movement's close association with Andrew Wakefield has also hurt its reputation, mirroring his fall from grace.

Celebrity support for vaccines, from Jennifer Lopez to Bill Gates, has grown. The 2017 March for Science was another positive development, with millions worldwide protesting the anti-science stance of the Trump administration.