Editorial: Lobbyists perpetuate skepticism over scientific findings

In lieu of more than 102 cases of the measles sprouting in the U.S. last month, CDC director Tom Friedan said the best way to prevent spread of new cases was vaccination. However, a small but growing number of parents aren’t getting their children vaccinated. Are these parents paranoid of vaccines? 

The fear of a link between autism and vaccinations spurred by scientist Andrew Wakefield’s now-retracted study has been completely discredited. But public opinion still suggests we’re uneasy about vaccines.

A recent article in the Washington Post suggests there is a schism between the scientific community and the general public that clouds the perception of real facts from falsehoods. 

Two opposing parties, scientists and lobbyists, offer different opinions to the public, mainly through the Internet. Lobbyists have biased agendas, seeking to twist data or outright lie in their party’s favor, while researchers are more concerned with objective proofs. 

Scientists’ hard data should prevail over the lobbyists, but the disparity between empirical data and subjective fodder puts compromises scientists’ credibility on a global stage. Moreover, while technological advances have accelerated scientific research, the number of American Association for the Advancement of Science members who feel that “today is a good time for science” has fallen from 76 percent in 2009 to 52 percent in 2015. 

A January report by AAAS and Pew Research Center explains the scientists’ disgruntlement. Following our vaccination example, there’s an 18 percent gap in opinion — 86 percent of AAAS scientists favor vaccination, as compared to just 68 percent of the general public.

We need to combat the gap in communication and understanding between scientists and citizens. The positive externalities enjoyed through scientific advances — like new medicines, surgical techniques and patents — may not persist if scientists feel, unsure the public will listen to their findings.

Vaccinations are not the only topic the public and scientists disagree on, though. Eighty-eight percent of AAAS scientists felt it was OK to consume genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of U.S. adults felt it was safe.

Disparity in sentiment is largely because of lobbying groups’ activities, fueled by anti-vaccine campaigners, creationists and climate-change denouncers, alike. These groups have biased personal agendas not necessarily aligned with public health.  

For example, corporate opponents of GMO labeling, like Coca-Cola, spent $27 million in the first six months of lobbying. If the government required companies to label all GMO foods, the public would think there was something wrong with nearly all food on the market, and economic demand would tailor to organics, leading to a rise in revenue for organic firms. For that reason, organic produce companies are some of the main lobbyists and proponents for GMO labeling.

We must unearth faulty websites and be wary of lobbyists who use false data on the Internet to confuse the public. The Cornell Alliance for Science aims to bridge this gap, particularly in terms of GMO crops. If more coalitions, such as the CAS, help to debunk “bad science” early on, we will see more of a consensus between scientists and the average citizen.

Before making a decision whether or not to get a measles vaccine, consider your sources. Nonprofit organizations, universities and reputable news sources are a great place to start. Be wary of biased sites with subjective agendas, looking to turn a profit. 

Objective data and scientists are your friends. With the expanse of knowledge online, it is important to know how to sift through the junk to find the valuables. Consider the implications of the Inter-“net.” Shouldn’t we be connecting valid ideas rather than distancing them?