Closed Autism

We've all heard about it: the supposed link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Celebrity crusaders, admittedly of noble intent, campaign against vaccines, and entreat parents to protect their children from the perceived dangers of vaccination. Such a link, if existent, would be quite newsworthy. But all too often the media can be swept up in the sensationalist opportunity, and fail to consider evidence to the contrary.

And while the news media may facilitate the spread of celebrity influence, some websites blatantly distort the truth entirely, catering to those whose minds teeter on the brink of decisiveness. Yet one thing is clear, that all of these disparate players in the autism debate (celebrities, news reporters, web publishers, and even parents) are at minimum two degrees of separation from the evidence.

The first degree, and most direct source of interpretation, is the scientist performing the study. Though bias and conlfict-of-interest may play some role, the general concensus of the scientific community, at least on the autism-MMR issue, is coherent. But just as white light passing through a prism separates into its constituent colors, the scientific data, once presented to the heterogenous populous, may be interpreted a myriad of ways.

And these different perspectives, some patently ridiculous, are all given due consideration. Because the color of the initial light source (the science) is obscured from view by a veil of closed access. Walled-off from the buzzing discussions, science exercises little influence over public opinion.

Just a few days ago, I read a fascinating little piece on a link between autism and vinyl flooring online in Scientific American. Eager to examine the full results, I sought after the journal NeuroToxicology, a decidedly closed access publisher.

It is exactly this sort of thing that allows unfounded scandals to initiate, and perpetuate. In other words, insularity in academia can yield insanity in public.

Nathan