Two recent articles in my hometown newspaper show how hard a time the media have understanding and explaining science.

The "Organic Foods" Story

On the same day that new laws were implemented concerning the labeling of organic foods, there was a long story in the Houston Chronicle titled "Getting to the Root of the Issue," on the first page of the Lifestyle section. The Chronicle does a lot of good work — and sometimes carries pieces of mine — but this particular article was written by a features writer with no apparent knowledge of the scientific issues involved in "organic" agriculture. The visual hook was a half-page colorful picture of packages of "organic" foods seemingly growing out of a small, cultivated patch of land. The story was largely "boosterism," as admitted to me by the journalist in an e-mail exchange. I would have used a much stronger term than "boosterism." Other than a brief quotation from a USDA official on the formulation of the rules for "organic" labeling, the only people quoted were advocates, owners of "organic" stores, and their customers.

Needless to say, the narrative had a warm feeling, depicting good people protecting the environment and producing or wanting wholesome, safe, clean food. Unless previously informed otherwise, the reader left the article with the belief that "organic" food was safer more nutritious and better for the environment, none of which is even remotely true.

One cannot fault the author of a story from using pictorials or graphics to attract readers. And what could appear more reasonable for a story on "organic" labeling than to ask those who are involved in promoting it? I took the time to write a lengthy e-mail to the author, which began a cordial and civilized exchange as I pointed out error after error in the article, offering to provide more documentation and have my publishers send him copies of my books on these issues — all to no avail.

Problem Number One: Journalists will quite naturally turn to activists who are more than willing to give of their time (since they do not have any productive use for it) to provide all the right-sounding statements. A features writer covering an issue such as "organic" food production will not even begin to know how to identify and locate scientists and others with a differing point of view. In some instances, such as the controversy over transgenic food production, there are no scientists of any professional stature who support the activists' position.

Once the story is run, any attempt at correction becomes old news, and even if the writer wanted to run another story, it is unlikely that the editors would run it, so the propaganda in the article becomes part of a cumulative, self-reinforcing "truth." The journalist in this case was honest enough to tell me that the next story on "organic" agriculture would likely be given to someone else. The first reporter's story, by reinforcing existing preconceptions and misinformation, did far more harm than good and should have been run as an advertisement for the "organic" food industry rather than as a news story.

Lesson: Advocates of sound science are at a disadvantage. Somehow, we have to educate assignment editors and journalists to the fact that there are scientific views other than those of the activists. If sound science isn't in the story, we must flood them with (good) letters to the editor. Sound science, which is fundamentally cautious, will always operate at a disadvantage because we neither can nor wish to match the certainties of the ideologues and their warm good feelings. Until we have a public that is more literate in science, ideological certainty and clever phraseology will most often trump the probability statements of scientists.

Additional Lesson: For decades, most of us have considered the advocates of "organic" agriculture to be a strange and harmless bunch of zealots. And harmless they were, for a while at least. The scientific community largely ignored them. Unfortunately, since the "organic" claims made over the decades went unchallenged, many people including reporters came to assume that they must be true. The lesson is that falsehoods should always be challenged, no matter how absurd they may be.

The "Autism and Vaccinations" Story

The following month, the newspaper's Sunday edition carried a front-page story on autism and immunization, a long and well-researched one. The article opened with the stories of children who had developed the overt signs of autism shortly after being vaccinated, or so it was believed. This was interwoven with a description of what we know about autism, the heart-rending hook being used to draw the reader into the larger story.

Problem Number Two: This one is almost too obvious to mention. In any story about children being harmed by medical science or by toxins in the environment, the readers' sympathy for children tends to cloud their judgment about the theories offered to explain the children's health problems. If the response of my students the day after that story ran is any indication, the thing readers retained was the plight of the autistic children. They should have known the larger issues because we had discussed them in class.

Lesson: It is difficult to fault reporters, who may have spent weeks researching a story, for using a lead that plays upon the readers' sympathy to hold their attention throughout the article. We have to find ways of showing sympathy for the children while separating the issue of their grievous misfortune from the scientific issue of the cause of their misfortune. (For more on that subject, see ACSH's new book, Are Children More Vulnerable to Environmental Chemicals?)

The reporters did contact a variety of genuine scientific experts on the subject and did include data and references to sources refuting the claim that various vaccines cause autism in children. They clearly stated the various problems with the anti-immunization claims, but most of the good science tended to be towards the end of the story, by which point many readers have already made up their minds.

Additional Lesson: One scientist who has been involved on various advisory committees on vaccines, clearly stated that they have been "tested every which way and no link to autism has ever come up...They're safe." Quite clearly, had the scientist been pushed on the issue, she would have made it clear that safe meant something other than absolute certainty but nevertheless so overwhelmingly likely to be safe that any reasonable person would consider vaccines as safe as any human endeavor can possibly be. The other references in the article supporting the no-link position used more circumspect language.

One would hope that an open-minded individual reading the article would recognize that the preponderance of scientific evidence was in favor of the safety of the vaccine, since there was no scientific evidence presented to substantiate the autism connection. However, the reporters never presented the evidence to seal the deal. The reporters could argue that their task is to report an issue and not to promote one side or the other. But by presenting the plight of the children with autism and the alleged connection to immunization, they had planted seeds of doubt. It was therefore their responsibility to present the issue in a manner that allowed the reader/parent to make a rational choice — and overcome doubt, if the science warranted it.

Problem Number Three: If all I knew about the issue was what I read in the article, would I as a grandparent recommend measles-mumps-rubella vaccination (MMR) for my grandchild Alejandro, who was due to receive his MMR shots shortly after the article was printed? The answer is unequivocally no! Why? Even though overwhelming scientific evidence is against an autism connection, the probability is not zero, so why put Alejandro at risk when he could be a free-rider and obtain the benefit of other children's risk taking? We will call this paranoid but strategic view the Alejandro factor, and it is an increasingly serious problem.

The vaccination article contained a statement that there are some "who worry about the effect of the allegations" of an immunization-autism link and who argue that "society is vulnerable because people don't know what it was like before vaccines, when diseases such as diphtheria and polio claimed thousands of lives a year." If I were a reader unfamiliar with the underlying issues, though, my response to talk of past plagues might be: that was then, this is now — Alejandro is the present and future.

In spite of the general professionalism of the authors, there was not a clear statement of the risks to Alejandro and other children from not being immunized. One might have inferred it from the description of conditions before widespread immunization, but now, with immunization widespread, readers might still come away thinking they would be wise to avoid being the ones to try vaccination. Back when the article was being written, I gave one of the authors of the article references to medical journals, magazines, newspapers, and my own books that provided tales — just as heart-rending as the autistic children's plight — about the harm that has resulted from children not being immunized. The references now at the author's disposal included data on the increase in mortality and morbidity rates from diseases like measles caused by parents who, out of fear, did not have their children immunized. The author now had access to data on an upsurge in death and disease as a result of concerted campaigns against immunization by proponents of "alternative" therapies. Some of the material in medical journals was quite graphic, providing a more than adequate emotional counterweight to the story of the autistic children. I am at a loss to explain why none of these references, particularly those to prestigious medical journals available online, were used.

Lesson: Once again, somehow we have to teach assignment editors, journalists, and journalism professors that no story on risk is complete unless it compares the risk under investigation with the risk of foregoing the action or thing from which the alleged risk arises. "Risk vs. risk" ought to be programmed into journalists' minds. In other words, risk vs. risk should be a basic rule of professional journalism. If we can just get this one idea to become common practice, it alone will bring a palpable improvement in risk reporting.

Unfortunately, risk reports have become a media stable such that many believe that modern life is dangerous despite the fact that we are living longer and healthier lives than ever before. Given the fuller understanding of risk vs. risk, Alejandro's parents (with the enthusiastic support of all of his grandparents) continued with the process of having him receive his recommended shots and he is and will be far safer and healthier because of it.

Additional lesson: The quote about "what it was like before vaccines" was "balanced" by reference to a local researcher who claims, probably legitimately, that she is unable to obtain funding to study the "theory that in some people the immune system attacks itself rather than the vaccine's viral material." She may indeed be having difficulties researching that theory, but the article might have helped readers if it had told them of scientists in the United Kingdom who complain that they have had to spend so much effort following up false theories about harm from vaccines that they do not have the time and resources to follow what they consider promising leads on the likely cause or causes of autism. False fears of health risks, spread by activism, force funding for research up blind alleys and thereby divert efforts from potentially life-saving research, just as articles focusing on imaginary risks divert attention from real ones.

Thomas R. DeGregori is professor of economics at the University of Houston, a member of the Board of Directors of ACSH, and the author of two recent books, The Environment, Our Natural Resources, and Modern Technology and Bountiful Harvest: Technology, Food Safety, and the Evironment, from which material was drawn for this piece.

January 20, 2003

How about someone finding a New York Times reporter who will do a reverse take: make the headline-grabbing statistics focus on the risks of not immunizing children. Toward the end of the article, the minimal-to-no risk of autism or any other childhood illness that has been linked to vaccinations could be put in its appropriate perspective (maybe in an easy to read bar graph). I think this would do a great service to the vast majority of Americans who would read such an article and come away reassured about the value of vaccinations.

— nancy.kerkvliet

January 23, 2003

The problem Dr. DeGregori mentions exists in areas besides the two he discusses. Other areas include DDT, asbestos, nuclear energy, low-level radiation, dioxin, food irradiation, and many others well known to the world of science and ACSH. The advantages of the activist-media complex have been exploited for more than thirty years, leaving the public horrifically uninformed on these issues, and vulnerable to more fear stories.

This well-nurtured public fear in the US has lead to the diversion of research dollars away from more promising research. Worse, it has led to the diversion of tens of billions spent in the pursuit of small or non-existent risks. Called "Cleanup" or "Superfund" or mitigation work, most of this effort could be done with far less waste, paperwork, risk analysis, permits, reviews, approvals, legal fees, etc.

This has also led to needlessly increased costs of electrical energy to American industry and to citizens. Today, for example, the Japanese build nuclear power plants at one third the cost and one third the construction duration of the U.S. The British are operating the large Sizewell B reactor with one third the staff needed in the U.S. to run the same size plant. Likewise, the French can build such plants in one third to one half the time and operate them with far fewer people.

In refusing to base their actions in solid science, the activists and their media friends have had a major role in creating this tragic waste of billions in the United States.

—Michael R. Fox Ph.D.

January 23, 2003

Thank you for an excellent article.

To the author's point that "False fears...force funding for research up blind alleys," I would like to add the following: It is ethically objectionable to expose human subjects to the risks of research participation when the sole apparent "benefit" of the research is essentially to use the data to shut people up (by showing time and again that their groundless pet theory is not true). This enterprise is even more dubious given that certain activists are unlikely to be persuaded by any of the resulting scientific data, since you can never completely and utterly prove that something isn't so.

Elizabeth Woeckner
Department of Classics
Princeton University

January 23, 2003

Professor DeGregori:

You say, "If sound science isn't in the story, we must flood them with (good) letters to the editor."

The Food section of the Washington Post gushes whenever "organic" grocers, ingredients, or restaurants are mentioned. This is usually just a brief mention or comment that is tangential to the point of the story: a new grocery store, a tasty recipe, or an excellent chef's new venue. It is not clear that direct challenges would be worthwhile when the objectionable passage is a brief comment or aside.

How would you recommend dealing this cultural problem?

—John Cross

January 23, 2003

I couldn't agree more with Dr. DeGregori on the lack of evidence supporting the perceived health benefits of organic food. What I find amazing is the myth that organic food is produced without chemicals or pesticides.

If one goes to the USDA-National Organic Program website, it becomes very apparent that organic growers can (and do) use a wide variety of chemicals, including pesticides and antibiotics. The public is being misled by the continued reports in the media that say otherwise. The fact that organic produce has an alarming problem with contamination by pathogenic bacteria is also never reported to the public.

Together, the incorrect statement that organic food is produced without chemicals or pesticides and the non-reporting of pathogenic bacterial contamination of organic food by the media are major deceptions.

Robert Wager
Malaspina University College
Nanaimo, BC
Canada

January 25, 2003

I agree with many of Dr DeGregori's recommendations and observations. I teach science journalism as an option on a UK university journalism degree, and I try and educate my students out of making the kind of mistakes he points out in his article. It is no easy task, however — the standard of basic science and math education among my students is appalling.

Blowing my own trumpet a little, I would like to see such a science — and especially statistics — module in all journalism training courses. It has, more or less, worked; there is nothing that students and most practicing journalists like more than shaking up the status quo a little, and if you can show them the many flaws in pieces written and broadcast by allegedly high-quality news outlets and the way they are manipulated by activists, they really take to it.

No doubt many of my trainees will succumb to the commercial pressures that suppress much challenging journalism (you won't get anything decent on organics in the graveyard of the mind that is the newspaper Lifestyle section; it's just there to expand saleable advertising space). They'll probably get lazier once secure in their jobs, but at least in their heart of hearts they will know better. The tragedy is that most journalists practicing at the moment just do not know they are doing anything wrong.

—Barry Blatt

February 5, 2003

Mr. DeGregori failed to mention three very critical points regarding the autism-immunization query.

First, central to this issue is the question whether or not the mercury in vaccines caused the autistic symptoms. Since the mercury additive is not essential to the effective administration of the vaccines and is being phased out of U.S. vaccinations, investigation into its possible connection to the recent autism epidemic should not threaten the national immunization program. I have never met a medical practitioner who cautioned anyone against immunizing children; furthermore, I have never read any reports encouraging parents to avoid vaccines. However, as the parent of a child with autism, I am glad that the media coverage of this issue is forcing the vaccine manufacturers to answer to the public.

Second, the mercury additive was not safety tested before its insertion into vaccines and has never been tested. In fact, the vaccine safety testing to which Mr. DeGregori refers was limited to reactions immediately following the vaccines. Until the recent Congressional investigation into the possible mercury-autism connection, no one (including the FDA) had ever considered the possible long-term effects of injecting infants with mercury. To this day, no agency or private company has published any reports about the cumulative effects of injecting so much mercury into newborns and toddlers. Without these tests, we won't be able to identify which children may be more genetically susceptible to mercury/vaccine injury — including, but not limited to, autism.

Third, autistic children, if vaccine damaged, have no recourse or source of funding for treatment. Even if the vaccine-autism connection is firmly established, under the current state of the law, these children have no means of obtaining critically needed medical attention and rehabilitative services. The current vaccine injury compensation program, which was designed to help provide money (and therefore medical care) to children damaged by vaccines, requires parents to file claims within three years of any sign of vaccine damage. Most of the children now being diagnosed with autism received their first doses of mercury-containing vaccines within hours of their births. Those same children are rarely diagnosed before the age of three. Therefore, even if parents filed claims immediately following diagnosis, the claims would be barred. I know of no one in my wide, growing circle of friends with autistic children who could have filed within the three-year limit.

Where does that leave the families struggling to overcome such a debilitating disease? Nowhere. Private health insurance will not cover services related to autism. And, despite the mountain of evidence attesting to the significant benefits of providing early, intensive rehabilitative therapy known as Applied Behavior Analysis (47% of children can attain full recovery), most states refuse to provide help to these children through federal/state Medicaid programs. Furthermore, the federal government has failed to provide any help for these children on its own initiative. If autism _is_ triggered by vaccines mandated by government programs, and the state and federal governments are doing nothing to help these children, then it is critical to highlight the _possibility_ of a link, even if one assumes Mr. DeGregori to be correct.

Mr. DeGregori also missed what is perhaps the most important point (though not unique to the autism issue) — that the media stand in the strange position of outsider/player in our system of government. It is critical to encourage the media to report the positions on both sides of an issue. This is especially true in the case of a highly controversial issue. Why? Because such articles often give voice to those without political clout, without the ability to speak for themselves, and/or without the financial means to force an issue into the spotlight. As the exhausted parent of a child with autism, I am grateful that members of the media persist in covering this issue.

I don't know whether or not the mercury in the many vaccines given to my son caused his autism. However, I am very glad this issue has received so much media attention. Without that attention, I would never have learned about the emphasis on mercury poisoning. Perhaps now the vaccine manufacturers will conduct safety tests on the mercury additive and we will know for certain whether or not there is a cause-and-effect relationship. Until then, I, for one, am reserving judgment.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Jones

DeGregori replies:

The anguish of a parent is evident in the letter of Elizabeth Jones. It is an anguish that I as a parent and grandparent appreciate and try to understand. But I also appreciate the anguish of parents at the loss of a child's life because they failed to have their child immunized from fears of harm based on an anti-modern ideology, not on scientific evidence.

Being an economist and not a medical doctor, I checked my facts with a variety of those with the appropriate scientific expertise. On the basis of the evidence available to me at the time and which has since been reconfirmed by several authorities, mercury is no longer used in the vaccine (and not simply "being phased out") and there has been no diminution in new cases of autism. More important, even though mercury is no longer being used, there are many groups advising parents not to immunize their children due to unfounded fears of vaccine-induced illness, including autism. These "consumer" and "parents" groups use autistic children and their understandably angry and frustrated parents as tools to further an ideological agenda that is doing great harm to children. I am surprised that Ms. Jones is unaware of anti-immunization groups. I assure her they exist, and tragically their influence and the harm that they cause is growing. The fact that she has "never met a medical practitioner who cautioned anyone against immunizing children," ought to clearly tell her where the science on the subject is.

If repeated studies found no harm from the immunization, that would clearly mean that neither the vaccine itself nor the "mercury additive" were causing harm. In any case, the mercury issue is now moot and the real question is whether parents should be frightened today into not having their children immunized — thereby putting them and their siblings at far greater risk of serious illness or death. This was the central point of my article. I had no quarrel with the researching and writing the newspaper article that I was criticizing. In fact, I had praise for the professionalism of the effort. My criticism was for failing to make clear the risks from not being immunized, an issue that Ms. Jones does not address in her letter. I am not opposed to research on the safety of vaccines, but the continued demand for more and more studies when those already performed overwhelmingly affirmed the safety of the vaccine has a cost in research that is not being carried out that might find a way to cure or mitigate the condition of autism — a much better way to help Ms. Jones' son.

The financial issues mentioned in her letter were not raised in my article. For some vaccines, there is a very small but known risk, which is often many thousand times less than the known benefit from it. In these cases where the immunization is compulsory and there are positive externalities — herd immunity — it makes sense and would not discourage use if there was a very small premium on the cost to create a fund to adequately compensate the few clearly definable victims. But where there is no evidence of harm from the vaccine, to place the burden of compensation on the provider would discourage research and development of new or improved vaccines, at a cost in illnesses not prevented and lives not saved.

I do not know why "private health insurance will not cover services related to autism," but it certainly makes more sense to make the case for private health providers to offer policies that provide coverage for autism and other childhood maladies that may not now be covered. I certainly would buy one for my grandchildren if the premiums were based on realistic risk factors — not because I fear for the safety of vaccines or other medical interventions but simply because, however much modern science has reduced risk for children, it is not zero and never can be.

Editor's note: ACSH's nutrition director, Ruth Kava points out that according to a recent New York Times article, there has been an increase in polio in India because of groundless parental fears about vaccines. Apparently, Muslim parents are being told the polio vaccine is a Hindu plot to render Muslim children infertile. In trying to err on the safe side, the parents have made their children vulnerable to a real danger.