I am really curious about science communication responses to MMR.
Anyone got any news/info on initiatives they or others have taken? Any views
on how the science communication community - or science more generally - has
responded? How have the new organisations performed that are supposed to be
an interface with the media? Any thoughts on what has been done right or
wrong? Anyone who has written on the subject?
Seems to me it would make a great case study in communicating science -
perhaps for a future BA/RS lecture or conference. Certainly, I could imagine
the Science Minister being asked in Cabinet for this kind of information
(not that I've really any idea what goes on in Cabinet)...
David
_____________________
A number of interesting articles relating to this have been written by Dr
Mike Fitzpatrick on http://www.spiked-online.com. Fitzpatrick is an East
London GP and author The Tyranny of Health, he also has an autistic son. He
was on Newsnight and published in the Times on MMR.
See below for details and links. List members may also be interested to read
an article I published on spiked, investigating the media launch and press
coverage of the Royal Society's GM report. Again see below for link - I'd be
very interested in any feedback.
Best wishes
Tony Gilland
Institute of Ideas
020 7269 9229
http://www.instituteofideas.com
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
18 February 2002
Myths of immunity
The imperilled 'immune system' is a metaphor for human vulnerability.
Fears that the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine may cause
autism have led to the demand that the measles, mumps and rubella components
should be given separately.
Popular beliefs about the dangers of immunisation to the immune system and
the assertion of the principles of consumer sovereignty now risk putting the
whole programme of mass childhood immunisation in jeopardy.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D418.htm
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
11 February 2002
Immune to the evidence
Four years after alleging a link between MMR and autism, Dr Andrew Wakefield
has failed to persuade a single reputable authority. So why do so many still
listen to him?
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D401.htm
14 February 2002
Putting fear before facts
by Tony Gilland
The Royal Society, the UK's premier scientific body, last week launched a
report pointing out the total lack of evidence that genetically modified
(GM) crops cause harm to humans (1). But you'd never have guessed that from
the media coverage.
My investigation into the report, and how it was released to the media,
found that the Royal Society gave great prominence to 'new' hypothetical
concerns, not because it had changed its opinion about the safety of GM, but
in an attempt to improve its standing in the eyes of the public.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D40E.htm
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|