In the 21st century we have more access to information than at any other time in history. A simple internet search for almost any term yields tens of thousands, sometimes even millions, of hits, with each website listed in the search results purporting to be an authority on the topic in question. While this often makes life easier and eliminates the need for painstaking research of a given issue, it has the unfortunate side effect of conferring legitimacy on these sources where, in many cases, it is undeserved.
Compounding the problem is that these claims to expertise regularly go unchallenged. This phenomenon is quite harmless when it pertains to the best way to make an omelette or to clean granite countertops, but when the subject at hand is literally a matter of life and death, the stakes are as high as they could possibly be.
In The Panic Virus (Simon & Schuster, $26.99), Seth Mnookin, author and contributing editor to Vanity Fair, investigates this issue as it relates to the recent controversy over the administration of the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine, and its rumored link to the onset of autism. Mnookin challenges the anti-vaccine groups, led by British gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, that their claims about a causal relationship between the vaccine and autism are baseless and, even worse, the result of a deliberate campaign of misinformation.
Mnookin uses contemporary and historical examples of the human race’s penchant for hysteria to make the case against Wakefield and his colleagues, and performs a damning dissection of the sloppy methods, questionable results and scathing peer reviews of his research. For his part, Wakefield, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, still today insists his theories are valid.
There is also a broader point to be made, Mnookin tells us, and it is that the preponderant trend of 21st century thinking is that feelings have as much value, and sometimes even more, than propositions supported by empirical evidence. There is a widespread undercurrent of mistrust of both the government and the medical establishment that is reinforcing the idea that only “the people” know what’s best for themselves in all areas of their lives, even in medical treatment.
The internet is in large part responsible for the spread of this sensibility, self-perpetuating as it is, as people scour the web for information that supports the position they already believe to be true. As social networking proliferates, so does the quick and easy connection of mutually supportive groups: Rather than truly trying to determine the validity of their opinion, people naturally seek out others who feel the same way they do and this instills them with a certainty that is almost unassailable.
Further, our modern press does nothing to foster a more rational conversation, in fact it seems intent on doing quite the opposite. In reporting the MMR controversy, many journalists did precious little of their own research and just regurgitated Wakefield’s claims, all the while hiding behind the dubious assertion that all sides of an argument deserve to be heard. This is, of course, not true if one side cannot prove that their position has any merit. Our press, it seems, is entirely too eager to give credit wher