The anti-vaccination movement has gained momentum in the last few years for a number of reasons. A big reason for this is because of the alleged connection between vaccines and triggering autism or ADHD in children. Most of the proof linking vaccines with autism has been debunked (scientifically, at least), but there is still a large portion of the American population that still do not get their children vaccinated. This has lead to the largest measles outbreak in America. Read this article in Scientific American about the controversy. Why would people, despite (relative) consensus from the scientific community and the CDC still choose not to have their children vaccinated? Is it a personal choice issue or a public safety issue? What are some knowledge issues we can extract from this real life situation? Go here to watch the latest NOVA documentary about the recent controversy over vaccines. It aired last Wednesday so it is very recent.
Another controversy that is much less scientifically clear is the debate over the use of GMOs as a main source of food for the american public (and the world at large). Proponents of GMOs applaud their pesticide resistance and count on GMOs as a more reliable and resistant strain of foods to sustain the evergrowing demand for food as the worlds population grows and grows. Opponents to GMOs cite the lack of scientific research on the adverse effects of modifying food from it's "natural" state, calling for more research and accusing big food companies (like Monsanto) of covering up the truth about the adverse effects of GMOs. Read the following three articles, one from Scientific American, one from MIT technology review, and another from an anti-GMO interest group. Who do you believe? Why? What do you think about eating "genetically-modified organisms"? Are there ethical concerns here? What are some knowledge issues that could be extracted from these real life situations? Post your thoughts below!
The debate over GMOs has evidence supporting both side of the argument, making it very controversial. GMOs have been used successfully within our country for many years now and there has been little to no backlash or harm that have come from them. GMO are successfully not in raising yield, but in protecting the crops and ensuring that they have more nutrients than they would have naturally. Evidence of GMOs being used us documented as early as Mendel's pea experiment. Although we have extensive evidence proving the safety of GMOs, there are a few points of interest we must address before expanding our GMO products to the rest of the nation. Some studies, such as the potato experiment in Africa, have reached very negative conclusions leading to sickness among the people who ate them. This indicates that we need to continue research and testing to ensure they are 100% safe before releasing them to the world's population in order to follow ethical guidelines. Although I realize GMOs are needed know and research would take lots of time and money I still believe that it is more critical to ensure their safety before releasing them with the possibility of starting a new epidemic.
ReplyDeleteSome similarities between the anti-vaccine movement and GMOs is that some people regardless of proof will always be skeptical. While being against vaccines is a far more pressing matter, and there is little to no reason to be against them, GMOs is a much more legitimate controversy. While Vaccines can never be proven to be completely safe the possibility is that you are taking a greater risk not taking a Vaccine, than taking one. While GMOs could also possibly have some harmful effects, we should not be against them, but instead call for more testing and research (because there is little to no credible research to date, stating that GMOs are harmfu). Another argument against GMOs is that most of the research is funded by GMO seed producing companies, but there is also evidence supporting GMOs by the European Union, where most GMOs are banned. Therefore doctors should be more proactive in explaining the overwhelming evidence for the benefit of vaccines, and more GMO research should be done, to add more weight to their credibility.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over anti-vaccination movement is very controversial with different opinions on both sides. While the scientific community did extended research on the vaccines and found them to be safe and relatively harmless, the parents would not have their children vaccinated despite the fact that there is increasing number of children dying from unnecessary deaths. It is shocking to me how these parents are choosing the risk of their children being infected by measles, mumps and rubella over the vaccination that was proved effective and safe scientifically.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the factors that caused the parents to still choose not to have their children vaccinated is due to the fear for uncertainty. Compared to the infectious diseases that have been studied fully with support from medication and statistics, the safety of vaccinations could not be fully proven. Despite of the fact that unvaccinated children were 23 times more likely to be infected, parents choose and make decision based on the side they are more certain about. Similar phenomenon is similar in the GMs debate which there is no research showing the 100% safety of GMs and cause objections toward the technology. Just because the safety of the vaccines and GMs could not be fully proven, people are choosing to object it completely which seems unreasonable to me. Just like what one of the authors says, “Nothing in medicine is 100 percent safe.” In my opinion, I instead of trying to avoid the small chance of being harmed by the vaccinations, parents should try to avoid the more catastrophic effect- the unnecessary death of their children.
The thought of having their children vaccinated for a disease, but instead ending up with autism or ADHD must be frightening enough that no level of convincing from the scientific community and the government would be enough to make the parents realize that they would be helping the community as a whole. Take for example, the 2 school kids who had T.B, the government had to quarantine the kids and shut down the school to protect the safety of the other kids in the area. It is a public safety issue because the diseases, if not controlled by vaccines would multiply and spread to other parts of the country. How do ethics hinder our way of gaining knowledge?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the genetically modified food will help because it is resistant to the many things that kill plants. In the 1840s, Ireland had a potato blight and famine swept through the country, as potatoes were the country staple food source. If GMOs existed at that time, the Irish could have planted potatoes that would resist the blight and be available for everyone. There are ethical concerns here, but the benefits of using GMOs greatly outweigh the risks associated with them. To what extent does past knowledge help us advance the world to a greater state?
The debate on GMOs and anti-vaccination are very similar, both show different groups doubting technology. Even though there is no evidence that oppose either issue, people still question them. For anti-vaccination, the more people who do not vaccinate their children, the more they are making the environment dangerous for everyone else. If more than 5% of the population does not vaccinate their children, herd immunity will not work, making it dangerous for the young and the elderly. Selfishness from parents could harm the public. I believe parents should vaccinate their children to keep the community safer from diseases, especially since there is no evidence against vaccines.
ReplyDeleteThe GMO debate shows people opposing technology that can allow the human population grow to 9 billion and over, but oppose it due to skepticism. Something with that power should not be stopped due to theoretical problems. I believe GMOs should be used since the benefits outweigh the possible risks.
The stupidity behind the "anti-vaccination" movement is astounding to me as a person living in the 21st century. It reaffirms the sad fact that an entire body of people in the United States choose to put their defenseless children in harm's way because of their misguided beliefs in anecdotal evidence and debunked medical journal entries which falsely hypothesizes a link between vaccines and autism in children. These claims use logical fallacies ("My child has autism and was vaccinated a while ago. The vaccines did it, I tell ya!) to scare many parents into believing vaccines will give their children autism (wakeup call: it won't.) I strongly believe that these parents are idiots for endangering their children by PURPOSELY avoiding vaccines that would prevent fatal infections such as chicken pox or whooping cough. The fact is, people centuries ago could only dream of such easy cures. Therefore, the mere existence of an "anti-vaccination" movement is one of the biggest acts of hubris possible as a person alive in 2014. I believe that vaccination isn't merely about belief, but about public safety- vaccines should be required, especially for children unable to speak for themselves. KQ's that we can extract from this include "How can pre-existing beliefs shape our decision making process?"
ReplyDeleteAs far as GMOs go, I agree that they are probably just as safe as the foods we eat today. However, I disagree with the way they are being presented. From the articles we read during class, it seems that GMOs are being touted as the way forward to solving world hunger- however the fact remains that this is an expensive technology still in its fledgeling state that doesn't alter crop yield. Therefore, it is senseless to push this technology onto farmers who can barely afford their farms today- making it more expensive and complicated would leave them dependent on american corporations. Furthermore, as this technology is still new it will change significantly in the years to come, and so it doesn't make sense for farmers to invest all their money into the earliest stages of this project which I agree will have monumental benefits in the years to come.
In regard to anti-vaccinations, I completely understand why people would not want to get their children vaccinated. Emotion plays a large part in this, and it is because parents are very concerned about their young children. They are very protective and therefore care a great deal about any sort of drug that is injected into them. The fact about drugs and vaccines is that no matter what scientists say, we do not have all the information about these vaccines because we do not know what the side effects to these drugs may be decades down the road. This uncertainty, however slight, is enough for a lot of parents to understandably avoid any sort of vaccinations on their children. So, this is more of a personal choice just so that parents can have peace of mind with their children's health.
ReplyDeleteThis idea relates to the debate over GMO's because in a similar way, scientists do not have all the facts. Technology is constantly changing and maybe down the road some of the scientist's information about GMO's is proved wrong. This leads to the knowledge question of, "To what extent does the technology available at the time affect scientific accuracy?"
Like Aaron says, skepticism isn't something that can be eradicated it will always be present. Be that as it may I feel that the skepticism is rooted by fear rather than actual fact. In both cases GMO's or Vaccines both have been given the thumbs up by the scientific community the uncertainty is not being placed in the product but rather the process. This is apparent in GMO's where people recognize the fact that "genes aren't static" and with the mutation of one gene another gene is potentially being altered as well. As it pertains to vaccinations we can never fully understand the extent to which vaccines may cause harm as everyone is different. But it all comes down to whether or fall under being "better safe than sorry" or "greater risk for greater reward" and that is the divide in both controversies.
ReplyDeleteRadical skepticism is caused by a lack of understanding. A lot of the mass media propaganda strongly influences the public because of their lack of understanding of the information. As one of the articles said, there is just too much out there and it is often confusing. The sheer overwhelmingness often leads to "playing it safe". Ironically, this leads to harm for both the individual and public welfare. That is why the government has the responsibility to produce standardized information for the good of public health. The domination by corporations causing inaction due to fear is highly detrimental to the mass public. Utilitarianism states that we must do the greatest good for the greatest number, and J.S. Mill would state that these people are causing harm to befall their children, therefore vaccines are necessary. The same goes for GMOs.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-vaccine movement actually makes me quite angry. The "scientists" that had claimed to have found a link between autism and vaccines have, for the most part, rescinded their reports. Yet some parents still refuse to vaccinate their children. Although pretty much most of the scientific community advocates the use of vaccinations, it doesn't matter to some people, because they have "found" one shred of doubt (link with autism) and are desperately clinging to it. It is most likely rooted in the rampant spread of misinformation, lack of research, or stubbornness (refusal to admit they may be wrong). It is very much a public safety issue. The efficiency of vaccines depends on how many people are actually vaccinated. If one person is to contract a disease like measles, then we hope that everyone else (or enough) people are vaccinated against it to prevent it from spreading. However, as more and more people refuse to get their children these important medicines, the risk of an outbreak dramatically increases. It is unfortunate that they refuse to acknowledge the importance of these scientific advancements.
ReplyDeleteWith GMOs, it is not unhealthy to not participate. People (in developed countries) have access to other means of food and nutrition. However, unlike with GMOs, not participating in vaccinations could prove disastrous.
This could beg the question "To what extent should the general population treat science as an authority?"
Skepticism is an important tool in decision-making, and is often encouraged. We tend to be skeptical just to make sure we are trusting the right things. However, even though like with GMOs skepticism is not harmful, with not getting vaccinated, it is very dangerous and extremely frustrating.
Parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated are ridiculous and ignorant to the situation at hand. Scientists are logical when they introduce a weakened strain of bacteria in order for children to build antibodies to combat the specific type of bacteria and prevent future sickness. Refusing to vaccinate a child is equivalent to saying that an antivirus software will harm my computer; it makes no sense. This is obviously a personal choice made by the parents, as their emotions against the decision overrides the success in which vaccinations have helped many others. An unvaccinated child also poses a potential threat to people whom he contacts, as he could carry a strain that infects others. Due to the highly emotional investment that parents hold in vaccinating, a possible KI could be: to what extent does emotion override the rationality of natural sciences?
ReplyDeleteAs for GMOs, I support the usage of genetic modification in order to strengthen the crops from disease. From the MIT tech review, we see that diseases are gradually evolving and populations are rising. As such, GMOs have to be utilized if we want to combat the evolution of blight as well as the exponentially increasing population. Some people say that a need for food is not immediate because there is already a surplus that can last until 2050, but I think it is better to have a significant surplus of food than coming to a point where we are barely making it through because countries have refused to use GMOs. Of couse, I expect the experimental crops to be thoroughly tested before being released to the masses, as this will settle some (but not all) of the doubts that the public has on GMOs. A KI that could be extracted is "how does faith in personal knowledge prevent people from embracing innovation?"
Surrounding the whole vaccination and GMO issues that many people are arguing about, there are two main camps; one where the people are for the use of GMOs and vaccines and the other where the people are completely against the use of them. The side for the use of vaccines and GMOs has solid scientific research to help prove the safety of both. The people against the use of these thing argue that the research done was funded by companies making the various vaccines and GMOs and declare the findings biased and invalid, however there actually hasn't been any definite research proving vaccines and GMOs as hazardous either. A major factor that plays a major role in this is faith. The faith of the people in the research and development of vaccine and genetically modified organisms determine whether they are for or against the use of them in society. I am personally for the use of vaccinations and GMOs due to the amount of research that has been done for both as well as the immense benefits of using them to help better the world. Eating GMOs seems perfectly fine to me, just as long as there has been research done to accurately and effectively determine any potential risks associated with the genetically altered food. Even though GMOs will not end wold hunger anytime soon in the future, I believe that it will help humans take a step in the right direction towards a solution. However a point that may not be discussed when solving world hunger and GMOs is the issue of waste. While GMOs could be a possible solution to the problem, it is still far from it while addressing the issue of waste is a thing we could deal with right now. Living in developed nation, I see so much wasted food being thrown out such as food thrown out just because its a day past the expiration date. It seems like in this day and age in developing countries, that people have developed some type of hoarding habits by buying food that will not all be used which ends up in the trash. Concerning the vaccination issue and ADHD and autism, people are mainly targeting vaccines because it's easy to attack this procedure witch introduces a virus into the immune system. What people aren't looking at is other possible causes, possible genetics or environmental quality that is causing these developmental issues. Going back 70 or so years, polio was killing thousands of people in the United States which for me is proof enough that the risk associated with vaccinations is far outweighed by the benefits. the knowledge issue that can address this situation is, "How does our faith in the natural sciences influence the changes we make in our lives?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm embarrassed that I only saw this post now... I think that our discussions in class reaffirmed my position on both subjects: I think we should utilize both programs despite the "risks." I think the reason that these are such major ethical debates is because we are not 100% sure; whenever there is doubt, it leads people to question the knowledge in general. For example, in the natural sciences, there are still people researching facts we consider as "truth" today, just because there is a slight possibility of another answer. I actually think this questioning is a good thing, as it makes us think in different ways and possibly discover new information never known before. Furthermore, if we all just blindly agreed to everything society concluded, we would all be naive clones with no self expression or ideas. Imagine if nobody questioned the geocentric model; we would still think that the Earth rather than the Sun was the center of our solar system.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over GMOs and vaccines have been large points of contention in the scientific community over the past few decades. While most scientific studies have found that these are fairly safe to use, many people have still voiced their great concerns in the matter. While I do not disagree with the claim that GMOs have looked to be safe and able to provide some agricultural benefits, I feel that a large ethical concern is the pressure that is placed on third world farmers to adopt these unproven commodities. This is especially prevalent with farmers in Africa where the introduction of GMOs have actually been largely ineffective and have left poor farmers with debts and fewer yields. Looking into the anti-vaccination movement, I believe that these proponents have a significantly weaker argument. There has been no legitimate evidence that points to the use of vaccines as a hazard, and that vaccines have actually been highly successful in their goal of eradicating serious diseases. Some knowledge issues that I thought of include, "To what extent does the uncertainty of new innovations in the natural sciences hinder their effectiveness?" Another one being, "How necessary is it to find absolute truth before using a potentially dangerous innovation?"
ReplyDelete