Once
upon a time, in a land not far away, there was a horrible virus that instilled
terror in every town and home. Although most people who became infected showed
no symptoms or recovered within a week, in a small fraction of cases the
illness progressed, causing loss of reflexes and muscle control, paralysis and,
sometimes, death.
Children
were especially vulnerable, so parents watched anxiously for any sign of
infection, often keeping them away from swimming pools, movie theaters, bowling
alleys, anywhere where there were crowds and the dreaded microbe might lurk.
Travel and business were sometimes curtailed between places with outbreaks, and
public health authorities imposed quarantines on healthy people who may have
been exposed, in order to halt the spread of the disease. In the first half of
the 1950s, with no cure and no vaccine, more than 200,000 Americans were disabled by the poliovirus. The virus was
second only to the atomic bomb as to what Americans feared most.
Then,
on April 12, 1955, public health officials at the University of Michigan
announced that a “safe, effective, and potent” vaccine had been found. This set off a national
celebration that recalled the end of World War II. Church bells rang, car horns honked, people wept with relief.
President
Eisenhower invited the vaccine’s inventor, Jonas Salk, to the White House. In a
Rose Garden ceremony, the former Supreme Allied Commander told the scientist in a trembling voice, “I should like to say to you that when I think of the
countless thousands of American parents and grandparents who are hereafter to
be spared the agonizing fears of the annual epidemic of poliomyelitis, when I
think of all the agony that these people will be spared seeing their loved ones
suffering in bed, I must say to you I have no words in which adequately to
express the thanks of myself and all the people I know—all 164 million
Americans, to say nothing of all the people in the world that will profit from
your discovery.”
But,
alas, not everyone joined the party and expressed such gratitude. One group in
particular did not welcome the vaccine as a breakthrough. Chiropractors
actively opposed the vaccination campaign that followed Salk’s triumph. Many
practitioners dismissed the role of contagious pathogens and adhered to the
founding principle of chiropractic that all disease originated in the spine.
Just a few years after the introduction of the vaccine, as the number of polio
cases was declining rapidly, an article in the Journal of the National
Chiropractic Association asked, “Has the Test Tube Fight Against Polio Failed?” It recommended that, rather than take the vaccine, once stricken,
“Chiropractic adjustments should be given of the entire spine during the first
three days of polio.”
Opposition
to the polio vaccine and to vaccination in general continued in the ranks such
that even four decades later, long after polio had been eradicated from the
United States, as many as one third of chiropractors still believed that there was no scientific proof that
vaccination prevents any disease, including polio. That belief and resistance continues to this day, with some chiropractors campaigning against state
vaccination mandates.
I
was shocked when I first learned about chiropractors’ opposition to the polio
vaccine. The vaccine is widely viewed as one of medicine’s greatest success
stories: Why would anyone have opposed it? My shock turned into excitement,
however, when I began to recognize the chiropractors’ pattern of arguments was
uncannily similar to those I was familiar with from creationists who deny evolutionary science. And
once I perceived those parallels, my excitement became an epiphany
when I realized that the same general pattern of arguments—a denialist
playbook—has been deployed to reject other scientific consensuses from the
health effects of tobacco to the existence and causes of climate change. The
same playbook is now being used to deny facts concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.
In brief, the six principal plays in
the denialist playbook are:
1. Doubt the Science
2. Question
Scientists’ Motives and Integrity
3. Magnify
Disagreements among Scientists and Cite Gadflies as Authorities
4. Exaggerate
Potential Harm
5. Appeal to Personal
Freedom
6. Reject Whatever
Would Repudiate A Key Philosophy
The
purpose of the denialism playbook is to advance rhetorical arguments that give
the appearance of legitimate debate when there is none. My purpose here is to
penetrate that rhetorical fog, and to show that these are the predictable tactics of those
clinging to an untenable position. If we hope to find any cure for (or vaccine
against) science denialism, scientists, journalists and the public need to be
able recognize, understand and anticipate these plays.
To
illustrate how the playbook works—and sadly, it is very effective –I will break
down the chiropractor and creationist versions, which have endured for many
decades in spite of overwhelming evidence, and point out parallels to the
coronavirus rhetoric.
THE PLAYBOOK
1. Doubt the Science
The
first tactic of denialism is to raise objections to scientific evidence or
interpretations. This may take the form of seemingly legitimate specific
arguments against a scientific claim. For example, chiropractors sought other explanations besides vaccine efficacy to account for the decline of
infectious diseases: “The Center for Disease Control statistics make it clear
that the majority of diseases that are now routinely vaccinated against were
disappearing before either the cause was discovered or the vaccine developed,”
stated a 1995 letter to the editor of Dynamic Chiropractic magazine. In
polio’s case, this argument does not hold up against the facts that: (a) the
disease was surging in the 1950s; (b) the vaccine was proven effective in a
massive double-blind, placebo-controlled trial; and (c) infections declined
precipitously after the introduction of the vaccine.
Alternatively,
some statements are blanket arguments against an entire scientific discipline.
For example, Henry Morris, whose 1961 book The Genesis Flood is credited with
reviving the creationism movement, alleged: “Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution
is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to
conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is
not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal
naturalism.”
2. Question Scientists’ Motives and Integrity
As
a growing body of consistent evidence can be hard to explain away, one fallback
is to impugn the source. In the vaccination arena, this often takes the form of
alleging financial conflicts of interest on the part of scientists, greed on
the part of manufacturers, and complicity of government officials. “It appears
that the scientific foundation on which these vaccines have been erected is
fragile enough that only compulsory laws, expensive public relations efforts,
outrageous propaganda, and expensive advertising must ensue for compliance to
be maintained,” wrote
one author in American
Chiropractor. Salk, by the way, filed no patent.
In
the evolution arena, scientists are often accused of being part of a conspiracy
to undermine religion through educational systems. Kenneth Cumming, of the
Institute for Creation Research, objected to a PBS series on evolution by
drawing a parallel to the 9/11 attackers: “America is being attacked from within through its public
schools by a militant religious movement of philosophical naturalists (i.e.,
atheists) under the guise of secular Darwinism. Both desire to alter the life
and thinking of our nation.” One noteworthy counter to such assertions is the Clergy Letter Project, which has gained the support of more than 15,000 Christian
clergy for the teaching of evolution.
3. Magnify Disagreements among Scientists and Cite Gadflies as
Authorities
In
all scientific arenas, there is honest disagreement about the interpretation of
evidence. However, these differences are deliberately inflated by denialists to
imply a lack of consensus on more fundamental points, while often propounding
the contradictory views of a few unqualified outliers. An example of the latter
is how some chiropractors have seized on the anti-vaccination stance of one
critic, Viera Scheibner. Her claim that there is no evidence for vaccine
efficacy or safety is cited repeatedly, while overlooking the fact that her
training and expertise is
in geology, not medicine.
In
the evolution arena, differences of interpretation among scientists are
relished by antievolution voices. For example, the initial discovery of a new
fossil hominid usually elicits some different interpretations and expressions
of uncertainty in the scientific community. Creationists often mischaracterize
these normal dynamics of scientific discourse as “skepticism” over the significance of such finds so as to discount
them. By overblowing legitimate disagreements and propounding “alternatives” to
evolution, denialists often make appeals to “teach the controversy,” when no
such controversy exists in the scientific community. Different interpretations
of a fossil do not negate the discomfiting evidence for the antiquity of human
ancestors.
Antievolution
leaders in the U.S. also include a small number of scholars whose credentials
are in other disciplines. For example, the abovementioned Henry Morris was an
engineer, not a biologist. Phillip E. Johnson, whose book Darwin on Trial inspired many
adherents to the intelligent design movement, was a law professor with no
formal training in biology.
A
lack of credentials or status within the scientific community is often seen not
as a liability but as a virtue. Scientists Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee note,
“Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their
theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage
against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political
correctness, often comparing themselves to Galileo.”
4. Exaggerate Potential Harm
When
the evidence contradicts a position, another recourse is to try to incite fear.
No vaccine or medicine is 100 percent safe, without any risk of side effects. Chiropractors
have long emphasized the potential side effects of vaccines, for example in a
statement in Dynamic Chiropractic offering a litant of possible
effects: “death, encephalopathy, demyelinating diseases, brachial neuritis,
Guillain-Barré syndrome, infections generated by vaccine agents, anaphylaxis,
subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, seizure disorder, optic neuritis, arthritis,”
and so on. However, they generally fail
to acknowledge the serious consequences of infections that
would be prevented by vaccination.
But
what harm could arise from knowing a bit about evolution? Well, Hitler, of
course! “Of the many factors that produced the Nazi Holocaust and World War
II,” wrote
one critic in the Journal
of Creation, “one of the most important was Darwin’s notion that
evolutionary progress occurs mainly as a result of the elimination of the weak
in the struggle for survival.” It is an oft-repeated
argument that has no bearing of course on the veracity of
Darwin’s theory.
Vaccination
foes have lobbed similar accusations, likening physicians who administer
vaccines to Nazi
doctors and alleging that vaccines violate the 1947 Nuremberg
Code of medical ethics.
5. Appeal to Personal Freedom
If
fear is not persuasive, there is another fallback position that resonates
strongly with Americans: the freedom of choice. The American Chiropractic
Association leaned on this cherished notion when it established its official vaccination policy:
“Since
the scientific community acknowledges that the use of vaccines is not without
risk, the American Chiropractic Association supports each individual’s right to
freedom of choice in his/her own health care based on an informed awareness of
the benefits and possible adverse effects of vaccination. The ACA is supportive
of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws… providing an
elective course of action regarding vaccination.”
Likewise,
the International
Chiropractic Association “questions the wisdom of mass
vaccination programs” and views compulsory programs as an infringement of “the
individual’s right to freedom of choice.”
Similarly,
the teaching of evolution in public schools is viewed as an assault upon the
religious freedom of those who oppose it. Those holding this view advocate for
disclaimers on textbooks (“just a theory”), the teaching of “alternative” views
of the history of life (Genesis or intelligent design), or the freedom to opt
out of the evolution curriculum of biology classes.
Notably, the
U.S. Supreme Court has rejected challenges to
compulsory vaccination partly on the grounds that individual belief cannot
subordinate the safety of an entire community. And U.S. courts have repeatedly struck
down attempts to subvert the teaching of evolution as
religiously motivated and violations of the establishment clause of the First
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
6. Reject Whatever Would
Repudiate a Key Philosophy
Once
the courts have spoken, and the scientific evidence grows to be overwhelming,
one might think that denialists would be out of plays. But there is one last
line of defense that reveals the nucleus of denial: It is not that some scientific claim is
untrue; it is that it is unacceptable in light of some philosophical
commitment. The science must be summarily rejected.
Chiropractic
was founded in the early 20th century on the assertion that all disease has its
origins in misalignments of the spine. “Chiropractors have found in every
disease that is supposed to be contagious, a cause in the spine,” claimed Bartlett
Joshua Palmer, the son of chiropractic founder Daniel David Palmer. Acceptance
of germ theory and vaccination would repudiate the founding premise of the
profession that all disease stems from vertebral misalignments. Therefore, that
premise cannot be questioned.
With
respect to evolution, Henry Morris made it plain: “When science and the Bible
differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.”
Any
credence granted to evolutionary science is a threat to a worldview based on
interpretation of the Bible; David Cloud, a publisher of Bible study materials
argues: “If the Bible does not mean what it says, there is no way to know what
it does mean.
Historian of
science and author Naomi Oreskes has coined a term for this stance: “implicatory
denial”—the rejection of scientific findings because we don’t like
their implications.
As
these positions are reinforced by family or community, they harden into part of
one’s identity. “In this way, cultural identity starts to override facts,”
Norwegian climate psychologist Per Espen Stoknes has
said. “And my identity trumps truth any day.”
Psychologists
Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris write in the Atlantic: “[W]hen
people feel a strong connection to a political party, leader, ideology, or
belief, they are more likely to let that allegiance do their thinking for them
and distort or ignore the evidence that challenges those loyalties.”
The
denialist playbook is now erupting around the coronavirus. Although COVID-19 is
new, the reactions to public health measures, scientific claims, and expert
advice are not. Attitudes and behaviors concerning the
threat posed by the coronavirus (doubting the science), the
efficacy of lockdowns
and mask wearing (freedoms being eroded) and alternative
treatments (gadflies over experts) are being driven as much or
more by rhetoric than by evidence.
Polls
indicate that despite the devastating health and economic impacts of the
pandemic, with respect to a potential vaccine we
are nowhere near as united as Americans were in 1955. But as
epidemiologist Michael Osterholm noted in
June, “Eventually there won't be any blue states or red states. There won't be
any blue cities or red rural areas. It'll all be COVID colored.”
Now,
sadly, there is no denying that.
No comments:
Post a Comment