U.S. health agencies stand behind safety of vaccines. Duh. I don't know a whole lot about chemistry or medicine, but I know a thing or two about history. Vaccine scares are recurring, persistent, and dangerous phenomena. Of course vaccines are not invulnerable to error and/or criticism, but the issue behind the most flagrantly idiotic panics usually has something to do with public misinterpretation (or outright ignorance) of the statistical data surrounding the effectiveness and/or risks of specific vaccines. Fortunately, electoral politics affords us a wonderful opportunity to use the various candidates as proxies for a larger discussion about the role of science in the life of our nation. For me, the call to arms was sounded by Mike Huckabee:
I am not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth grade science book — I am asking for the opportunity to be President of the United States.
Is it acceptable for a U.S. president to have a knowledge of foundational scientific principles that has not progressed beyond what is (presumably) being taught in the seventh grade? The Republican establishment has responded with a resounding "you betcha!" John McCain, as is widely known, has staked out a rather moronic position on vaccines – not a political position, but a medical one (source: bad astronomy via C&L):
McCain needs to replace his medical and scientific advisors forthwith and find some who understand science and clinical trials. I suppose I should have seen it coming when he agreed to give the keynote address for the Discovery Institute last year. Credulity towards one form of pseudoscience is, sadly, often accompanied by credulity towards other forms of pseudoscience. This is worse, though, than pandering to creationists. Presidents don't have much power to determine how evolution is taught at the local school [level], but he does have enormous power over the public health apparatus of the nation in the form of the CDC, FDA, and NIH. Encouraging antivaccinationists can lead to a public health disaster in the form of the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases.
From the link embedded in that last quote:
It is of the utmost importance that a president, or future president, have rational thinking and reasoning skills as well as a firm grasp over what constitutes scientific evidence in the formulation of theories. A president makes crucial decisions every day which impact the lives of millions of people. The election of a person who demonstrates an inability to assimilate facts and observations in a way that makes sense, but rather defaults to an emotional mythology, would be a grave mistake. Therefore, not only is it beyond reproach for the "intelligent liberal community" to impose a requirement of rationality on a future president, it would be ludicrous to do otherwise. Yes, I believe that influential people who cannot use their power in a coherent, scientifically-supportable way merits contempt.
That sounds about right to me.
UPDATE: And on an on and on it goes…
Comments