What do autism and climate change have in common? They are two sides of the same coin. On one side, you have autism, vaccines, and a single study from 1998 that was long touted as evidence of a link between the two. On the other side, you have climate-change deniers arguing that climate science is a chain rather than a web, and thus its strength is defined by its weakest links. Let us explore this schizophrenia, and see what we can learn.
The last few weeks have brought with them news on both fronts. In the world of autism research, we heard that The Lancet [1], which originally published a study linking autism, colitis, and the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine [2], retracted the article. This came long after the article had been discredited by other studies and long after questions were raised about research ethics in the study. This article stood largely on its own as the biggest single piece of evidence wielded by anti-vaccination groups fighting childhood vaccination.
In the world of climate change, we have seen more and more attempts to totally discredit the IPCC and climate scientists. This is largely because of an erroneous IPCC statement that the Himalayan glaciers in India will all melt by 2035 [3]. The correct number was 2350, and while the evidence for climate change doesn’t rest on any such single number or study, the anti-climate-change community has been raising hell. Taken together with the cries of pundits that the recent spate of winter storms in the American south cast doubt on climate change (we’ll get to that in a moment), we see the flip-side of the Autism coin: those in denial of human-induced climate change claim that since individual conclusions are in error, the whole of the science is absolutely incorrect.
The strategies employed by both the anti-vaccination and anti-climate-change forces are really the same: cast doubt on the overwhelming majority of science by either (a) pointing to single pieces of evidence that run counter to the rest or (b) cast the majority of science as being in doubt when one or a few pieces of the science are problematic. These strategies are very similar to the way the tobacco industry tried to counter the growing number of studies linking cancer and smoking: cast doubt on the science and the scientists. They are similar to the strategy to deny the role of evolution as real: cast doubt on the science by pointing to things it doesn’t (yet) explain, or claim that since a few intelligent design papers get published they are somehow equal in merit to the thousands of papers studying nature using evolution. From both the autism and climate change news, we as scientists can learn and grow.
It is foremost important to remember that science is a process of experimentation, induction, and deduction, designed to understand the natural world. It makes mistakes, but is largely self-correcting. Science is a process, and thus not defined by a single scientist or a single result. While science is “democratic,” in the sense that each person has equal right to contribute ideas, the scientific method itself is designed to define which ideas are correct and useful and which are incorrect and useless. A single incorrect result will be ferreted out; a single bad actor will not stand the withering scrutiny of people employing or testing their results.
So while it is fair to offer the hypothesis that there is a link between autism and MMR vaccination, it is patently unscientific to deny the overwhelming evidence that cannot find such a link. Going further, it is then also well outside the realm of science to cling to one or a few studies that do support your idea. When you cling to an idea in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you have crossed from science to non-science or pseudo-science and the natural world will have no truck with you.
Hundreds of studies have demonstrated the link between human activity (industrialization of production and agriculture), increased production of CO2, methane, and other heat-trapping gases, and changes in average global temperature. The mistaken number for the year of Himalayan glacier melt does not mean all climate science is wrong. In fact, if anything the over-focus on this one error steals attention from a real crisis in India right now: the disappearance of coastal communities due to rising sea levels [4].
A single snow storm that brings record cold to the southern U.S. does not mean climate change is a lie [5] – it points more to the El Nino cycle than anything else – nor does the fact that snow had to be trucked into Whistler for the Winter Olympics constitute singular evidence for climate change. The long-term pattern is all that matters, and that is well-established: the earth has warmed and cooled in the past, but never as rapidly as now, and the correlation between CO2 and methane production by industrialization of production and farming is clearly linked to the temperature rise.
Likewise, there is no statistical correlation between MMR vaccine and autism; between when the vaccine is given and the appearance of autism; between staggering or grouping vaccinations and autism. While the actions of climate change deniers and anti-vaccination people appears the same – ignore the science – their approaches are really mirror images of one another. One clings to singular (and discredited) studies, while the other claims all of the science is wrong if even a small part of it is wrong.
The fact that glaciers won’t melt for 300 more years, rather than 20 more years, doesn’t change the fact that climate change is wreaking economic and social havoc now. This fact does not make the economic challenge of dealing with climate change any easier. The fact that there is no link between autism and vaccination does not cheapen the struggle of parents to adapt to the needs of their children; if anything, it makes the case even stronger that we need to look for the real causes of autism and empower people with real knowledge about this state of mental development. But pointing the finger at the wrong cause will only lead to the deaths of thousands or millions from easily treatable and preventable diseases. Likewise, pointing the finger at a few wrong conclusions or a handful of mis-behaved climate scientists will only forestall real action and lead to the collapse of civilizations under the unstoppable pressure of the climate.
Science tries to read the story of the natural world, and if the natural world is marching on some slow but undeniable course then science will be carried along with it. That progress is like the tide – it moves slowly, but with great purpose, and in its march forward it is hard to stop. Deniers wield a few scientific anomalies like hammers; they will stand on the shore desperately trying to beat back the tide. You can deny the tide, you can stand in one place and pretend it isn’t coming in, you can swing your little hammer, but you risk drowning. Worse, if you convince a lot of other people that science isn’t telling us something about the world, that the tide isn’t coming in, they may stand in defiance shoulder-to-shoulder with you. There you may all be safe for a while, but in the end nature will do what she does, science will read her tale and point out courses of action, and we’ll all wonder where you got off to on that lonely stretch of beach.
[2] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract (“RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.” The Lancet, Volume 351, Issue 9103, Pages 637 – 641, 28 February 1998)
[4] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123733016
[5] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123671588
