Is all "truthiness" bad? Science using "truthiness" as a help rather than a hinderance.

            The extent that we rely on science to make decisions varies on the amount of both general and scientific knowledge we have about the scenario. I vividly remember my mother making the decision not to go forth with an autonomous stem cell transplant. She ultimately decided to forgo the treatment as she “felt” in her “gut” that she would not survive the harm done to her body. An autonomous stem cell transplant filters and cleans the blood, decreasing her ability to fight potential infection, and is incredibly damaging to the body. The procedure required my mother to go to Washington D.C. for three months with contact limited to doctors and my father. The truth was that they could not guarantee success in the procedure, and her risks were real. Physicians advised my mother that her decision to forgo this treatment would mean there are no other options, only hospice. My mother’s decision to forgo the procedure gave her one more year to spend with her children, and we will never know if what she “felt” in her “gut” was real.

            We know very little about the emotional experience of “feeling” something in your “gut” for all we know it could be one of the best ways to make decisions. Is the inclusion of the emotional experience make science “truthy”? I believe that “truthiness” is part of the human experience and cannot be denied from the information that we share to the public. To say that science can only convey the “truth” defies what we know about the human influence of science.  I argue that as hard as we try to tell only the truth it is nearly impossible, and that nearly all scientific information is “truthiness.” I am sure some scientists would resent the idea that they influence their work but as we discussed in class we try to find the information we think we know. When we write science it is important to be responsible and ethical about how much we influence what is written and shared with the public. It is equally important that we look at the way in which science is conducted, and evaluate it for potential confounding ideas and opinions.  

            “Truthiness” is necessary to appeal to different parts of the population. We saw in “Gasland” that appealing to the emotional side of people can change the way that individual, popular, and corporate decisions are made. It can allow others to do further research in to a topic by questioning the ideas and values that are presented. Unfortunately, this can also influence people to believe that vaccines are still causing Autism Spectrum Disorders. There is an extent to which I can argue that “truthiness” is acceptable, as our job as science writers is to present the best and most accurate information. I imagine that “truthiness” is on a spectrum one side telling the truth with emotional appeal the other telling blatant lies to gain emotional support. I believe that we have a role as science writers to challenge science’s “truthiness” but to appeal to public interest as well.

Let's NOT Lose Them

            To call vaccine-autism advocates scientifically illiterate or ignorant is entirely inaccurate. In fact, many vaccine-autism advocates are probably more aware of scientific research than many other populations. Unfortunately, I believe most vaccine-autism advocates have an emotional/rational conflict. When someone falls ill the first response is to have them diagnosed and hopefully “treated” or “cured.” Autism does not have the same progression. In fact, everything seems quite normal in the beginning but as your child fails to meet developmental milestones parents instantaneously want options on how to “fix” their child. Given that research has been unable to provide any other answers, these parents will hold on to any option that would prevent this from happening not only to their future children but other children as well.

            I personally believe a large part of this conflict can be contributed to psychology. As humans we tend to seek out information that we know to be the truth. Even though all research that has pointed to vaccines has been proven to be completely false, they will continue to build on what they think they know. Another part of the conflict is that no other options have been put forward as to why we are experiencing such a surge in Autism. Parents have a difficult time coping with the idea that their genetic information caused such a conflict in their child’s life. People do not want to be the cause of Autism, and when they feel responsible they also feel that they must find the solution.

            Jenny McCarthy represents an emotional relationship with someone who has the resources, access, and experience in dealing with Autism. Jenny McCarthy provides an answer that they feel science is simply not providing, even if she is not a reliable source. Research is a slow, methodical process which requires many years and definitely does not provide immediate answers. Today’s society wants the answer now and we simply do not have it. Rather than harp over what cannot be understood we should be working towards creating a more accepting and accessible society for all individuals who fall on the Autism spectrum. I would argue that Autism is almost as much of a social disease as it is a biomedical. Society should not treat those with Autism as though their life is over before it started because they simply have Autism. Many who do have Autism found ways to live full and happy lives, regardless of what society dictates as “successful.” I do not argue that we should not continue to look for the causes of Autism, but we should not treat people as though they are worth nothing because they do not function “normally.” Together the population can improve the lives of those with Autism not only through acceptance but through social action.

            As science writers we need to make sure that information that we do know is distributed as clearly and efficiently as possible, while acknowledging that circumstances are subject to change. We need to respect that people are not always going to agree with what you are distributing but you should remain as unbiased and professional as possible. In my opinion, the most important thing that we can do is try to gain the support of those vaccine-autism advocates. Alienation will not educate the population but providing accurate information and distributing it quickly will gain the trust of people from varying organizations, and hopefully those who still believe vaccines to be the cause of Autism will come to terms with the truth.

Science for the Few

          In 1969 Professor George Miller, former president, addressed the American Psychological Association, saying that the greatest challenge to the next generation of scientists is, “to consider how to best give science away.” Now forty-four years later what have we accomplished? Unfortunately science, specifically scientific means and scientific knowledge, is becoming increasingly difficult to access because of its increasing privatization. Privatization, in this sense, is scientific knowledge information being owned by an individual, group, or corporation. Access to this material is usually only given with consent of those whom own the content, often through monetary mechanisms. Science should always be “given away,” and when withheld is denying the common good.  

          “Safe and effective” was plastered on every newspaper, television, and face on April 12^th, 1955 when Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was declared a success. The next step for Salk was mass vaccination for 440,000 children in the United States, Canada, and Finland. Jonas Salk, contrary to what is popular today, did not patent the vaccine. A patent is a form of intellectual property which consists of the government granting exclusive rights to the inventor in exchange for public disclosure¹. The incentive for the inventor is in the economic exchange. Forbes magazine estimated that Jonas Salk forfeited nearly 7 billion dollars when he distributed his vaccine worldwide². Without a patent, countries were able to maintain a low cost for the vaccine allowing individuals from all economic classes to have access to the vaccine. Jonas Salk’s choice was to the benefit of the common good.

          Patents were intended to benefit the common good through the distribution of discovery and invention. Unfortunately patents have come at the expense of millions of lives. Lisset Ferreira, of Fordham Law Review, argued that allowing individuals or organizations to have exclusive rights gives pharmaceutical companies control of that market in which no other companies can compete³. Competition allows for a decrease in price and therefore available to a larger population. The notion of affordable science can be seen in developing third world countries that have little to no access to HIV/AIDS drug treatments. We must ask is science for the common good or for the good of those who can afford it? How can we deny people treatment for the gain of the corporation? These questions challenge what we understand science to be. I show yet again that social factors are deeply intertwined in science.   

          Science writers should not be responsible for “giving away” science. The job of the science writer is to translate. Scientists have an obligation to the common good to “give away” science. Jonas Salk was not the prime benefactor from the polio vaccine but world population was. If by January 13, 2014 Indian physicians do not find another case of polio the nation will be declared polio⁴. Salk’s ability to see past his self interest calmed the international fear. Contrary to Salk, corporations, such as Pfizer, control those who will be able to utilize science and medical breakthroughs, through patents that limit competition and reproduction. Simply, those who can afford their life will likely survive. Science is not for the few, it is for the common good. 

 1.http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html#protection

2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/08/09/how-much-money-did-jonas-salk-potentially-forfeit-by-not-patenting-the-polio-vaccine/

3. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3874&context=flr&sei-redir=1&

4.http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/13/what-two-years-without-polio-mean-for-india/

Reigniting Curiosity through Science Writing

         Scientific progression does not occur through the regurgitation of facts but through creative problem solving. For example, Jonas Salk, creator of the Polio vaccine, was forced to creatively conceive of solutions to the dreaded disease outside of the traditional science box. The beauty of a child’s mind is how free it is to believe in the impossible, to think outside of any box.  Why, then, when students reach middle school, has their thinking been transformed into facts and memorization? Why is a once boundless world confined to what is “conceivable”? What happened to curiosity?

          School is the difference. Rather than encouraging and facilitating creativity, school instead quashes it. One way schools do this is through increasing amounts of standardization. Standardization is a uniform measuring system in which all participants can be compared to. The most popular standardization is in testing. The Keystones are an eleventh grade standardized test in Pennsylvania, the purpose of which is to assess proficiency in a wide range of subjects, including science. The state uses examination as a way to understand which individual high schools are reaching the desired level of proficiency. While tests are the most common, standardization of teaching methods is becoming increasingly popular. Teachers are now becoming required to teach in a specific way, in order for the students to receive as much information as possible, many times for the standardized tests. Inclusion of creativity is now a risk to their career rather than a way to enlighten students.

          Standardization implies that there is one way to teach a child and one way for a child to learn. This is simply untrue. Testing is the easiest method for the state to evaluate student education, but this does not mean it is the best. Test taking is only one type of educational recall. Students who do not excel on tests may better express their knowledge and thought through creative methods such as writing or artistic expression. The average classroom is structured as a lecture in which students passively receive information. But research repeatedly illustrates that we learn best through active participation and guided learning. Classes on diversity of learners have become a staple for students pursuing a degree in education. Why then is this rejected? There can be one group of students that reaches optimal learning ability when a concept is taught using only one method. Another group of students might instead need to be able to physically piece together the different parts. When we realize that there is nothing standard about educating students we can then move forward in designing a program that can be adapted not only to the group but to the individual.

          Science writers cannot make the public love science. Science writers can make science accessible. The goal is to make science writing as diverse as the population it seeks to educate. This means knowing the limits on the science writing medium. Writing will not reach everyone, especially those who learn better with visual, auditory, or kinesthetic mediums. This requires science writers to think outside of the box to find ways to integrate their message through other sources. One of the best examples is Planet Earth, narrated by David Attenborough. Scientists and science writers’ worked together to develop a medium that addressed not only visual but auditory learners as well. Science writing in the traditional sense will continue to only address the literate population. When we extend beyond pencil to paper we can regain those we lost to the failing education system and reignite the inquisition and curiosity they once knew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U