By Karin Krisher

The hot topics among parents today include Autism, diet, technology dependence and of course, inoculation. Most states require vaccinations for children entering public school; currently, Vermont does not.

The debate is, as should be expected, based on the balance between utilitarian arguments and personal freedoms. When so many people do take the steps to proper vaccination, and those individuals’ choices are affected by those that do not take the steps, we have a difficult legislative battle on our hands.

One of the fuels for the battle is the misperception that vaccines and vaccines alone directly cause diseases, disorders or behavioral issues. Parents who choose not to vaccinate are, in their minds, choosing health, making it difficult for anyone to fault them.

But the problem arises when people making that decision would also like to be part of a massive public educational infrastructure, which is a product of the needs of the many. As a majority of people do have their children vaccinated, putting that decision in jeopardy due to the decisions of the few is likely unethical.

At the same time, choices about health are a personal freedom in many senses, and to take that away makes a statement. Our feeling is that representatives are elected to speak for a majority, and so will generally attempt to promote the needs of the majority. The majority of people do vaccinate, and health has become a public effort in many ways, meaning we think Vermont will be making some changes.

How do you feel about vaccinations? Do you recommend them to your patients?

By Karin Krisher

What does it mean when retractions of scientific papers are on a noticeably steep upward trajectory? Does it mean individuals are less credible overall? Does it mean that publications have abandoned their commitment to truth seeking?

Or does it simply reflect a changing scientific environment that facilitates competition between many little fish in an ocean, rather than encouraging collaboration between the big fish in a smaller pond?

We’re inclined to blame the environment, a negative result of a generally positive change —growth. We of course recognize that online publication of papers allows them to reach a wider audience, meaning errors are likely spotted more often. But the argument here is not really about statistical method—it’s about the attitude shift that seems to have occurred with a boom in numbers of college (more specifically PhD) students and subsequently, scientists.

Because government spending on medical research has increased over time, and because media publication is a business, money is often a factor in a researcher’s success. Writes Carl Zimmer of the New York Times:

“The National Institutes of Health accepts a much lower percentage of grant applications today than in earlier decades. At the same time, many universities expect scientists to draw an increasing part of their salaries from grants, and these pressures have influenced how scientists are promoted.”

These pressures can also lead science down a terrible path: A promotion (and more flawed research efforts) might depend on research that isn’t viable if the researcher/writer has published many articles in journals of high import, an ability also determined by grant allocation.

By definition, the scientific method recognizes ignorance and incorrectness on the part of the scientist. But it has always been about dispelling, rather than encouraging, those traits. Talk to your colleagues about the sharp increase in retractions and discuss what it means to your practice and your way of understanding information.

With the advent of online publication comes the civilian’s ability to rapidly discover and absorb. While access to information is a beautiful thing, access to misinformation can be harmful—and retractions don’t always make headlines.

That’s why it’s important to know your stuff and be capable of dispelling those beliefs that may have been generated from since-retracted studies, either for your patients’ sake or for the value of your own information-seeking lifestyle.

How have you dealt with misinformation in the past, either with your patients or yourself?

How do you feel science can get back to the basics in ensuring the publication of only verifiable material, cutting the number of retractions of scientific papers? Tell us in a comment!