‘… science journalism is much more about journalism than it is about science’

Gregory, J. and Miller, S. 1998. Science in Public. Basic books. Chapter 5.


An Introduction to the Anti-vaccination Movement and its Implications

Opposition to vaccinations has existed since its conception. However, the contemporary example of the anti-vaccination movement was spearheaded by the apparent connection of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism spectrum disorders. This link was published by Andrew Wakefield, a former doctor and researcher, in a reputable medical journal: The Lancet. Accompanying the scientific flaws of the paper, Wakefield was receiving funding from litigants against vaccine manufacturers; an undeclared conflict of interest. After the paper was discredited because the results failed to be replicated, the paper was retracted from The Lancet.

The development of vaccines has played a vital role in human survival throughout history, despite this; the anti-vaccine movement prevails. Vaccines have decreased, and even eliminated,  childhood diseases, the elimination of smallpox being one such triumph. If it was contracted, smallpox had a death rate of around 30% but in 1980 it was declared globally eradicated by the World Health Organization (WHO); largely due to the widely available vaccine and the WHO’s wide-reaching efforts.

This contrasts heavily to Wakefield’s MMR scandal. When the paper was published, its data was endorsed by celebrities claiming to be ‘autism experts’. Those such as Jenna McCarthy and Oprah Winfrey used the power of social media and their own talk show to promote the anti-vaccination to parents. The effect rippled globally. In Italy, the 2002-2003 measles outbreak cost the country 17.6 – 22 million euros, a direct relationship with the declining popularity of the MMR vaccine. The decrease in herd immunity (the decreasing probability of contracting the disease without being vaccinated by being surrounded by immunised people), cost and rising death count are only some consequences of the anti-vaccination movement. However, “Objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinions than appeals to emotion and public belief.” (The Oxford English Dictionary). This is the reason why, in response to Wakefield’s imprudent claim, many are left unvaccinated and exposed to MMR.

The Communication Problems Between the Scientific Community and the Public

The MMR scandal is an example which reveals the lack of connection between the scientific community and the general public. A void which has left the public exposed to manipulation by fake news, misrepresentation of statistics and sensationalism. The anti-vaccination movement harnessed this and used the unstoppable power of the internet and social media to present vaccine victims and plant seeds of doubt in the minds of impressionable parents about the long-term effects of the vaccine. Concerning the worrying decision whether to vaccinate your children, the seed of doubt is inevitable to grow. Yet, in an era where the dominant power of the internet cannot be controlled, who is to be held accountable for presenting incorrect information?     

If The Lancet hadn’t printed Andrew Wakefield’s claim of a link between the MMR Vaccine and autism, would there have been 913 laboratory confirmed measles cases in England between 1st January 2018 and 31st October 2018 (in comparison to 259 measles cases in 2017)? The purpose of the media is not to present sound science. The media promotes a culture of sensationalism with no regard to the long-term impacts, pursuing the need to formulate interesting stories. The media can monopolize its power, omitting the methodological details of the research when presenting arguments for anti-vaccination, therefore preventing the readers from making an informed, educated judgement. For example, in a review of Andrew Wakefield’s study, Brian Deer unearthed that only 12 patients were studied before presenting a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism. Upon following up the patients, Deer unearthed that all 12 cases had been misreported and altered to support Wakefield’s conclusion. However, were the shortcomings of the study published alongside the influential claims? No. Journalists favor anomalies and novelties, to present ‘boring’ news undermined the purpose of getting the most readers.  

Scientists’ inability to convey their process understandably and accessibly and the media’s resultant exploitation of this has severe consequences. In such a socio-important event such as the US Election, social media bots and Russian trolls circulated tweets in support of the anti-vaccination movement. To create such misalignment in vaccination policy would initiate biological warfare. Please see: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45294192 for the full article. This highlights the imperative necessity to bridge the gap between the esoteric scientific community and the exoteric public, with clearly expressed policy on vaccinations needed to avoid the global spread of fatal infectious diseases.

How Can Science be Better Communicated?

  1.     Choice of Platform for Communicating Science to the Public  

One key issue with effectively conveying scientific information to the general public is the medium used to present the information and its accessibility. Reports are the most common platform used by scientists, however they are too scientifically dense to be accurately translated from the esoteric scientific community to the exoteric public. This gives journalists creative license to omit critical details of the scientific process; necessary details the general public need to make informed decisions and respond unbiasedly. To solve this issue, relevant science should be adapted for social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter…) as they are frequently utilised by the public. By doing this, information is promulgated more accurately because it bypasses the chance to be  “manipulated” by the media, as the case was with the HPV and MMR vaccines.

  1.     Lucid and Succinct Communication

When presenting their findings, scientists must also adapt their technical terminology to accurately convey their message to a broader audience. Technical jargon does not only disinterest the typical reader but also hinders their understanding on the subject matter. In addition, the surplus of background data must only be included if relevant to the general public. In acknowledgement of this, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) recommends the “Three M’s of Messaging” strategy (Forbes, 2016). This strategy is explained in figure 1.  


Figure 1: Styles of communication. The American Association for the Advancement of Science.

  1.     Relatability

Frequently, the general public does’t heed to scientific advice because the article lacks an unbiased discussion of the benefits and potential shortcomings of the topic at hand. It is critical for the public to be armed with the necessary information to form their own opinion and chose their own course of action. In the media, it is currently possible to manipulate the translation of the scientific report in response to the journalists opinion or the unseen influencers of the article. A sense of accountability for what is published must be introduced, reducing the opportunity to present incorrect information to an impressionable audience. Exploitation of vaccination victims and pathos must be avoided or presented in relation with the success of vaccination development.  

View the following links for further information:

  1.    https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i18/Communicating-science-effectively-public.html
  2.    https://www.nap.edu/read/23674/chapter/2#4
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qToGZNA4NTQ

How do we defend science against pseudo-science?

To defend science against pseudo-science, society needs to encourage the media, research organisations, companies and other bodies that spread what they claim to be ‘scientific’ knowledge, to have as much transparency, openness and communication with the public as possible.

We can do this in two ways. Firstly, by introducing legislation that regulates the spreading of incorrect,misleading science. Secondly, we can all exert pressure on the media by collectively developing a critical outlook, by thinking about the evidence (or lack thereof), behind the claims and theories that are being presented to us and by engaging in broad public discussion. What is required is a certain default level of cynicism with respect to new facts and a willingness to ask the question: why should I believe this to be true? When we are fed new information, let’s look at the sources; who is saying this? What kind of evidence is being presented? When did they say this, and have there been developments since? Why might they be saying this? What are other people saying about this? If I increase the depth of research, using trusted sources, does this correspond to the original claim? If we have learnt one thing from the anti-vaccination scandal, it is the crucial importance of questioning. Hasn’t the uncritical acceptance of misleading information done more than enough damage already? It is unfortunately but undeniably the case, that the media has forced us to live in mistrust and suspicion of it. Sad though it is, we must be vigilant and thoroughly careful, or else the consequences can be literally fatal. Be sceptical; don’t take anything at face-value.

Here are our top tips on how to protect yourself against unreliable information online:

  1.    Always be critical, sceptical and weary; always think twice

  – many experts will claim to be experts when they’re not – it’s easy to get misled by fancy titles (see ‘Dr’ Gilian McKeith

  1.    Be selective about the websites you get information from; .org, .gov and .edu pages can often be more reputable
  2.    Search for generally trusted organisations

 – e.g. the NHS for medical information or various government agencies

  1.    subscribe to science journals and websites to keep up to date with current scientific affairs

 – e.g. Science (http://www.sciencemag.org), Nature(https://www.nature.com),New Scientists(https://www.newscientist.com), Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com),BBC Focus (https://www.sciencefocus.com),wired (https://www.wired.com),nationalgeographic (https://www.nationalgeographic.com)etc.

  1.    As a general rule, the more life-changing the information, the more time and effort you should spend scrutinising it and its source.

–  If you’re going to not immunise your child and the child contracts rubella and dies as a consequence of your decision, do make sure you have looked into the reliability of the information on which you are basing this life-changing (and in this case life-threatening) decision.



Some further reading:

Finding good information on the internet – https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/finding-good-information-on-the-internet/

How to Find Trustworthy Science and Health Information  – https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-to-find-trustworthy-science-and-health-information-44866760/#Cqay8m5Hbw2Zg1jb.99





Any opinions expressed within this blog are the opinions of the author(s) and not those of University College London. This blog does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any information, content or advertisements contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website. You hereby acknowledge that any reliance upon any materials shall be at your own risk. This blog reserves the right, at its sole discretion and without any obligation, to make improvements to, or correct any error or omissions in any portion of the service or the materials.

3 thoughts on “

  1. Group 9 feedback:
    – First impressions are that the presentation is very clean, but a bit bare (although we really do like the fact you started out with a quote). The inclusion of some photographs would make your work feel more like a blog post than a paper and we think would make it more open to a wider audience.
    – The structure is very clear and logical, the writing style is consistent and the line of argument is clear throughout so well done.
    – Generally, it is clear what you are trying to say. However, there are a couple of paragraphs where it is not so clear, especially if your intended audience is not assumed to have any scientific knowledge. The strategy you give a picture of in figure one is very unclear; it is described as showing the “three M’s of messaging” yet none of the words in the figure begin with an M. Additionally, the following paragraph on relatability doesn’t clarify what is being related to what and the language doesn’t lend itself well to be understood on the first read. As this is a blog post and not a ‘serious’ piece of scientific literature, we think you can afford to be more casual (and use simpler language) in this paragraph and in fact through the whole piece.
    – As you have covered both bullet points you have done well in condensing all the necessary information into approx 1500 words. However, the extra links you supply might be better integrated throughout the writing instead of as a list at the end, so that as people are reading they can click on a link there and then to get more information, instead of trawling through a list of links trying to find something relevant. Furthermore, it may be worth expanding on Wakefield’s paper, ie explaining why it was a bad scientific report and why specifically it was removed from the journal. If not, at least link to a page explaining this or to the original paper itself so that people can read it first hand.
    – We really liked the numbered sections in which you break down your points clearly and give short simple steps for a relatively uneducated reader to understand.
    – Overall, the presentation is clear but there is room for more hyperlinks/videos to bulk it up and make it more like a blog rather than a paper.
    Good job so far!


  2. Group 11:
    Very good structure, which clearly guides you through the topic. Arguments are very clear and some persuasive evidence is presented. The first part could benefit from more visual aid to break up the text a bit more, in the same way the the bullet points and graph do in the second part. The Language might be a little formal at times (esoteric/exoteric for example), but otherwise the text is very good. It may be better to place the initial quote further down the blog after some of the explanation to emphasise its meaning. Interesting style of conclusion.

    In ‘The Communication Problems Between the Scientific Community and the Public’, more explanation is needed to illustrate the relevance of data from 2018 about MMR to Wakefield’s paper in 1998 (e.g. Even 20 years after the paper was published, we can see its effects…). In addition, who is Brian Deer? What about him legitimises his review? Also, consider using relevant words as the hyperlink to the article (rather than inserting the link halfway through your paragraph).

    The bullet point format in ‘How Can Science Be Better Communicated’ was helpful in breaking up the text (although in ‘3. Relatability’, there is a minor mistake in grammar).

    Lastly, in ‘How do we defend science against pseudo-science?’, consider putting the string of questions in bullet point format (as done at the end). This would place emphasis on the reader’s responsibility to actually consider these questions when they read/view science portrayed in the media.


  3. Group 12 feedback

    The structure is very good. It is set in a very clear way of giving an example of where science is not communicated well as an introduction which demonstrates the consequence of the problem for the reader. It then nicely links this with how the communication in this instance is done incorrectly which smoothly links to the next point about how we can improve this. It finally concludes with the wider problem of science communication by ‘taking a step back’ and analysing the problem on the whole which really cements the point that the authors are demonstrating to the reader.

    Evidence is repeatedly used to reinforce the points that are being made which gives greater substance to the points that are being made. However, there a few instances where statistics are stated without a reference which makes the reader doubt the creadibility of the point that has just been made. For instance, the stat “2003 measles outbreak cost the country 17.6 – 22 million euros” was given without a reference. On the whole, the use of statistics is very useful however a few references need to be added.

    The article is very clear in making its point and demonstrates the importance of communicating science properly. The key message is that everything is produced for a purpose and it is the job for us, the reader, to question the intentions that the particular producer has. From that, we can then evaluate the evidence given and whether or not it is viable. Although this point is illustrated throughout the text, to grab the attention of all readers different statistics could have been used. For example, if there were any deaths related as a product of poor communication, it would be incredibly striking and so the reader will become a lot more attentive and weary of the problem that faces us therefore making the article more persuasive.

    The presentation of the article is simple and it is very easy to read and follow. Perhaps a bit of colour and illustration may catch the attention of a greater number of readers. Despite this the main aim is for the presentation to allow the reader to easily follow the text which this achieves.


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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s