The denial of science

Daniel’s recent battle with a Thai monkey got me thinking about vaccinations. He has had all of his rabies vaccinations now but it was quite a detailed process with lots of shots required and at very particular intervals and all of the same type i.e.there are a few options for rabies vaccinations I am told and whichever particular variety is chosen at the outset must be continued for the duration. It was also *very* expensive.

But I don’t doubt for a second that we did the right thing. The risk may have been very, very small but the consequences were so awful to contemplate that it really was a no-brainer in the end. Yet there are many people, particularly in New Zealand, who deny the effectiveness of vaccines. They take it even further than this by claiming that vaccines are harmful. One such organistion, WAVES (warnings about vaccine expectations NZ Inc), writes in its brochure that “Vaccines contain very toxic substances that are poisonous to our bodies.” and also “Vaccines are not very effective in preventing the disease that they are supposed to protect against.” 

Vaccines do contain substances which could be considered toxic if they were consumed in large amounts but the quantities contained in vaccines are insufficient to be so. The doctor who treated Daniel told me that whenever one of his patients brings this up, he asks them whether they drink alcohol. Alcohol is a risk factor in breast cancer even when consumed in very moderate amounts. This is one of the reasons why I don’t drink.

Today I read a paper called Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? (h/t to uknowispeaksense for this). It gives a good definition for denialism:

The Hoofnagle brothers, a lawyer and a physiologist from the United States, who have done much to develop the concept of denialism, have defined it as the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists.

They then go on to present five characteristics, any1 subset of which may form the basis of denial. One of these is to selectively present isolated scientific papers which are outliers in the field. A good example in the case of vaccinations is the now retracted 1998 Wakefield paper which purported to find a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The General Medical Council recently ruled that the author acted dishonestly. But despite all of this the MMR-autism myth continues to be live. Why do people cling to a shred of discredited evidence against a mountain of more reputable stuff? In other words, why do they deny science?

The same thing happens in other areas like climate change, the links between HIV and AIDS and smoking and cancer. I think it’s worth highlighting the five elements of denial that McKee and Diethelm write about:

1. Identify conspiracies. In climate science denial, people have argued that scientists are doctoring the temperature records to make it look like warming is happening when it is not. This idea must be incredibly hard to justify to oneself as it is ridiculous to think that thousands of scientists from lots of different countries could be in on some conspiracy theory which will not benefit them in any way and which all of us want to be wrong.

2. Using fake experts. This technique was employed by the tobacco industry which had a strategy of employing scientists whose views were at odds with the consensus in the field. The same tactic can be seen in climate change. From the McKee article: “In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed a Global Climate Science Communications Plan, involving the recruitment of ‘scientists who share the industry’s views of climate science [who can] help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases’.”

3. Highlighting outliers. I mentioned this previously with my MMR-autism example. A similar thing happens in climate change when contrarians make a big deal out of research that claims figures for climate sensitivity lying outside the IPCC range. They are highlighting a few research papers that are outliers while ignoring the majority of evidence.

4. Placing impossible expectations on research. The repeated phrase that the “models failed to predict the pause” fits with this. No-one can predict the future exactly. Scientists do not work with ouija boards.  Climate models – just like all models of physical systems – contain uncertainty and it is unreasonable to expect them not to. But although the model projections do a remarkably accurate job of making future projections of climate, contrarians still place unreasonable expectations on what they can do.

5. Using misrepresentation and logical fallacies. And I have to reproduce this quote from the same paper because of how it seems to echo my post yesterday about Roy Spencer and his global warming Nazis. “For example, pro-smoking groups have often used the fact that Hitler supported some anti-smoking campaigns to represent those advocating tobacco control as Nazis (even coining the term nico-nazis), even though other senior Nazis were smokers, blocking attempts to disseminate anti-smoking propaganda and ensuring that troops has sufficient supplies of cigarettes.”

So the question now is how to respond to this? The authors offer a suggestion:

Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so.

 
 
1. My mathematician husband insists that I insert the word “non-empty” here. Pedantic!

19 thoughts on “The denial of science

  1. The examples of vaccines and HIV do show that there is apparently no need for financial backing, it can also happen without.

    Are people that campaign against vaccines typically already vaccinated themselves, before they found the truth?

    1. I think there are some who have been vaccinated themselves and some who haven’t. I’m not sure that there’s a predominance of either. I had a friend when I lived in Chch who was anti-vaccination. She had been vaccinated as a child but chose not to vaccinate her own children because she felt vaccines were dangerous and not effective. We used to argue about it. That’s why I’m quite familiar with their position and also why I see a similarly between the anti-vaccine group and the anti-climate science one.

  2. The post is only 3 hours old….I wonder if the anti-vaxxers will find it? If they do, be prepared for a whole new level of stupid. Wear headgear and get ready to cut and paste IP addresses.

  3. Thanks for your articles exposing sock puppet, trolls, contrarians and deniers. I appreciate your summary of the five elements of denial that McKee and Diethelm write about, and, with your permission, I’d like to use it in an article i’m planning to write about the Climate Denial Machine.

    Keep your helmet handy. I once dared to write about fluoridation and gun control, and the rocks flew.

    J.C.

  4. I’m glad to here that Daniel has completed his treatment without incident. Even though the risk was small, it must have been a worry for you and painful for Daniel.

    ———-

    Denial as a syndrome, dysfunction or phenomena is an interesing pursuit in itself. Understanding the mechanics and motives are particularly important with regard to climate science. Unfortuntely motives seem numerous. Ranging from fear of anything that a person does not understand to rejection of what a person cannot control or pleasure/kudos in disprupting anything or stealing anothers self esteem.

    Such things, personality disorders and what is referred to as being a “control freak” are not well researched because such people do not present for treatment. This makes differentiating between genuine and bogus difficult except by deconstructing arguments to determine what is deliberate from honest error.

    For many reasons we need to understand the mind sets of those who bear influence and how to deal with them. Sanity being something that is only evolving from an illusion but is, I believe, our most important endeavour. It effects our lives, those around us, our world and future.

    FDR said. when you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on. Churchill, who suffered from deep depresssion, used to say KBO (keep buggering on). Smart cookies both.

    Have fun 🙂 G

    1. What you say about the difficulty of differentiating between genuine and bogus rings true for me. I think what the authors say about a meaningful discussion being one that contains an acceptance of basic logic and a willingness to examine evidence are important reminders of what a productive discussion involves. I think people should also be prepared to acknowledge their mistakes.

      1. Quite so. Perhaps the privilege of entering serious discussion should be on the acceptance of ground rules, like cricket. Breaking the rules means a person gets suspended. Although, commentators referring to each other by name rather than by a comment title may be asking for trouble. People can take things so personally.

        I despair. Oh no I don’t. Oh yes he does. Oh no he doesn’t. Hees behind you. aargh

  5. Very interesting article, Rachel. I really can’t understand what drives deniers unless, of course, there’s a business agenda on foot. Anti-vaccination campaigners seem to have a compulsion to dismiss the bleeding obvious and then make a cause out of their denialism. Is it a lack of trust or what?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s