From the headline, I expected to read that Congress had cut funding for vaccination programs, leading to a resurgence of measles. The author doesn't mention any cuts, however. Her actual argument is that Congress held hearings at which it heard from the CDC and other experts, but also heard from Wakefield and other crackpot anti-vaxxers, resulting in more publicity for the anti-vax cause. Presumably, this led to an increase in the number of parents deciding not to have their children vaccinated.

I can see her reasoning. OTOH, it makes me uneasy to say that Congress shouldn't even listen to a point of view that's been deemed in advance to be wrong. My natural inclination is to hold the hearings, let both sides speak, put tough questions to both sides, and see who can provide good answers. How much responsibility does Congress bear if anti-vaxxers cherry-pick its hearing transcript, and use the internet to publicize one side of the argument?

Congress doesn't have unlimited time, of course, so some decisions have to be made about which subjects to investigate. After all, no matter how important a public health issue is, it can't be permitted to distract from the sixth or is it seventh investigation of Benghazi. Still, if I were in Congress, I'd rather be saying to the anti-vaxxers "We held hearings, we gave your champions a chance to speak, they had nothing of substance, and the witnesses who were genuine experts blew them out the water." That's a better position than "We think you're wrong so we're not going to listen to you."

That's how one resolves a debate.

Science isn't a debate.

If the anti-vaxxers have any proof, they can write a paper just like any other scientist (or person for that matter, you don't have to be a PhD to write a paper). If their proof stands up to review and duplication, it's true. If their proof does not, it's false.

You could take just about any scientific idea, especially one that goes against common sense, and chart its progress through the usual stages. For example, consider plate tectonics, or, since we're talking about vaccines, the germ theory of disease. The normal stages were:
* No one had even conceived of the idea. (The continents move? Diseases are caused by tiny little invisible animals? Yeah, right.)
* It was one hypothesis that had been advanced, but only by a few scientists.
* It had considerable support in the scientific community, but also considerable opposition. (A debate was going on about whether this hypothesis was the best fit for the available data.)
* It was generally accepted but there were a few holdouts.
* It was the consensus view, with the opposition having died out. (Sometimes literally -- as Max Planck said, about the process by which untenable old views are definitively discarded, "Science advances through the progression of funerals.&quot

In my lifetime I remember that there was a debate among cosmologists between the big-bang theory and the steady-state theory. You didn't have to bring in entertainers or crackpots -- there were serious scientists on each side of the question, and there were well-reasoned papers in peer-reviewed journals. Over time, the process that you describe did produce a consensus for the big bang, but that doesn't mean there was never any debate.

Congress, of course, isn't refereeing journal articles. If there's a belief that's much more widespread among members of the public than among scientists, there's still some case for saying that Congress should hold a hearing. There is such a thing as an entrenched scientific establishment that's resistant to disruptive new ideas. That's a valuable trait because most of those new ideas are wrong, but a Congressional investigation might at times help a correct new idea break through a little more quickly.

They were resolved by people showing their proof, and others replicating it.

All the anti-vaxxers have is bullshit.

You don't resolve that by having a debate between science and bullshit. You resolve that by making the bullshit side show their proof. Which they've utterly failed to do.

To be clear: I hold no brief for the anti-vaxxer crackpots.

Leaving them aside, though, what's inaccurate in my description of plate tectonics, the big bang theory, and the germ theory of disease? You mention only replication, which is certainly an important part of science. Doctors were told to wash up between operations and the rate of infection went down. Other hospitals tried it and the same thing happened. That was powerful evidence for the germ theory (although not conclusive -- the problem could still be inanimate toxins rather than invisible little animals).

Replication (in the sense of controlled experimentation) isn't the entire story, though. Most notably, the disagreement over cosmogony -- the steady-state theory versus the big bang theory -- wasn't matter of replicating results. Nobody could build a little universe and experiment on it. Instead, each of these theories was formulated as a way of explaining the information then available. There was a time at which reasonable scientists could and did disagree about which theory was the better fit for the observational data. As observational methods improved, new data became available, and the consensus was that the big bang theory did a better job of explaining it.

You refer to "proof" without elaboration. Science depends on data, not on people's opinions, but it doesn't produce "proof" the way mathematics does. Scientific theories are always open to being modified, or even junked entirely, in the face of new data.

The scientific theories you cite went from fringe idea to "standard model" by showing proof.

That's because proof is not just replication.

Big bang made particular predictions about the universe. For example, galaxies would be moving. So we looked at galaxies, and lo and behold they are moving. That is some proof for the big bang. Additional predictions were tested, and found to be true. Repeat that over and over, and you have proof.


Good thing this is a politics web site and not an academic journal. Otherwise using the common definition of "proof" instead of the precise definition would be a problem.

Antivaxxers have a theory - vaccines cause autism. They have absolutely zero data showing that.

In fact, they have data showing it doesn't happen. The chemical they blamed was removed from vaccines in the US in 2000. The autism rate in the US did not drop. The chemical was not removed from vaccines sent to Africa due to refrigeration issues. Autism did not skyrocket in Africa.

Antivaxxers deserve no "seat at the table" until they manage to produce any data backing up their theory. That's how science works - if you have no data whatsoever, you're free to chat about your idea. But no one will take you seriously. A small study gets people to take note of your idea. A large study showing it may be true makes people take you seriously.

Instead, your proposal above is to take them very seriously by having them testify with zero evidence to back up their claim.

I don't think they got the memo on TV about the need to vaccinate.