Vaccine Concerns & SciComm: An Analysis

Over the last few weeks, we have seen a very strong reaction from the scientific community in response to the Joe R*gan podcast with RFKJr. Much of it frustration (justifiable!) and hot takes. Both RFKJr and JR have chequered histories when it comes to vaccines and conversations about science, which is presumably why the outrage is so strong. But I’d like to unpack some of the potential unintended consequences from these responses and consider it from a science communication lens. 

There are three key issues that I have observed in online content: invoking the gospel of science, dismissal of concern and ad hominem sledging matches. And at the core, I believe that each of these responses serve as a wedge to widen the gap between science and the public. 

Twitter screenshot

The text says "childhood vaccination is one of the greatest medical advances of the last 100 yrs. If you have concerns, please listen to your pediatrician, not some twitter goofball whose expertise is probably limited to a barely passing grade in high school biology.”

In the example tweet, you can see this person weaponises all three aspects to demonstrate their frustration. Firstly, they invoke the gospel of science. That is, they discuss science in a way that holds it up into a position of “truth”. And not in the sense of “we’ve tested this from varying perspectives, and it holds up to fact” kind of truth. Rather, science becomes a faith-based truth in which one must doggedly hold to it, without holding an ounce of humility. The problem with this is that truth becomes about power. Instead of impartially considering science as a means to understanding, it becomes a weapon to hold superiority. This position also falsely leads people to perceive that this is a personal attack on science, or as some might call it, a war on science (highly recommend Maya Goldenberg’s Vaccine Hesitancy). Believing there is a war on science is not uncommon amongst scientists and health professionals, but it is very likely a warped sense of reality. Beyond this, it also holds science up on a pedestal that cannot be challenged. This very naturally leads to the second issue: dismissal.

In the narratives online in response to the podcast, the default reply has been to ignore or dismiss suggestions as unworthy of consideration. In doing so, we send a message to people that the only position that matters is the one of scientists. The problem with this is that it positions science and scientists as superior. This is often reflected in dissemination models of communication; a one-way, passive information sharing type of communication (Metcalfe, 2019). However, this model can be reductive and ignores that science impacts people contextually and individually.  Instead, we should consider communication from a dialogic or participatory lens - different perspectives matter, regardless of who they come from. Another aspect of dismissal is that it positions health professionals as the authority. In the example tweet we see the poster recommends “listen to your pediatrician”. Whilst they may have authority, what happens then if the health professional holds an opposing view to scientific method? How does one decide who to listen to? We see this issue play out repeatedly online, where people engage with content that confirms their own beliefs.  We should instead encourage people to critically appraise content online and provide resources to do so (O’Brien et al, 2021).

Finally, in many of these responses we have seen a quick descent into labelling other people’s personality, instead of the message. For example, we might say “RFK is an idiot” or “JR is an ignorant ex UFC fighter”. Or in the tweet: “Twitter goofball whose expertise is probably limited to a barely passing grade in high school biology.” These don’t address the issues (the message they share), they provide us with a source of entertainment. It’s the lazy way to rebut challenges to scientific information. This type of approach is called an ad hominem attack. Ad hominems are easy to offer and hard to walk back (there is some interesting nuance about ad hominems, but that’s story for another day!). But the use of ad hominems in this context reinforces the other two issues above by othering groups of people and weaponising superiority. You can see a recent example of this in the Scientific American. The problem with some types of ad hominems in this context is that you confirm “the believers” beliefs. That is, the people who already see the arguments from RFK and JR as shaky enjoy your jibes, but you potentially ostractise those that might be “on the fence”. This is a shame, because it’s those on the fence that we want to reach with facts about vaccines.  

So how should we approach science communication in the face of misinformation? We defer to the science on science communication. We should seek to affirm people’s values, engage in dialogue, and demonstrate epistemic humility.

While parents swap stories of concern and heightened emotion, scientists respond with cold, unfeeling language that a peer review panel would accept rather than the public.

It's not simply a knowledge deficit issue. This leaves us with the need to consider our approaches to communication that meet the needs of the public and the broader community. Science communicators can learn from Joe Rogan and RFKJr: use storytelling, emotive language to frame the message, accessible yet scientific words, and begin with the public from the outset. While the knowledge deficit model (dissemination) may be a more convenient approach to science communication, as a community, we must consider nuanced strategies - and, dare I say it, more human approaches to communication.

Sure, we might still publicly state that the information presented on the podcast was wrong, but we can provide an alternative narrative and story on why vaccination is beneficial for our community and how we take steps to ensure their safety (Romy Blacklaw and I unpacked this in a previous blog, but there’s a whole field of research specifically about talking about vaccination - start with looking up Prof Julie Leask or A/Prof Katie Attwell). And yes. We’re human. Comedic relief is a real thing - if you don’t laugh you cry. But I think it’s worth taking a pause and considering the unintended consequence. We must resist the urge to launch a defensive and consider our own role in inadvertently creating a wedge between people and science. 

Want to learn more?

Follow me at @j_stokesparish or drop me a line on what you’d like to learn about.

References:

Goldenberg MJ. (2021) The ignorant public. Vaccine Hesitancy : Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. Boston, UNITED STATES: University of Pittsburgh Press https://upittpress.org/books/9780822966906/

Leask J, Kinnersley P, Jackson C, Cheater F, Bedford H, Rowles G. (2012) Communicating with parents about vaccination: a framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatrics. 2012;12(1):154. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-12-154

Metcalfe, J. (2019). Comparing science communication theory with practice: An assessment and critique using Australian data. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 382-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518821022

O'Brien, T. C., Palmer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184