tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
During last winter's H1N1 season, Ottawa's public health leaders met an unexpected hurdle: many people refused to trust the vaccine's safety despite reassurances from the medical establishment.
"People were dubious. There was a healthy dose of people who were concerned about the vaccination and didn't have confidence in it," said Councillor Diane Deans, who chairs the city's community and protective services committee.
That distrust kept many people away from vaccination clinics. "We had one of the highest rates of vaccination in the entire province, but we certainly didn't vaccinate anywhere near everybody. We got 50 per cent if I recall," Deans said.
A new study suggests why this happened, and why the public often rejects the opinions of scientific experts. And it's bad news for scientists and policymakers.
The public tends not to trust scientists, says research from California -- but there's a twist.
People are mainly reluctant to believe good news, it turns out -- such as the message that flu vaccine is safe. But we're more likely to trust the researchers who frighten us with bad news.
Overall the study concludes that "scientists' efforts to influence public opinion have a limited effect." It's published in the research journal Public Understanding of Science.
The work is based on a public opinion survey of 1,475 Californians to assess whether people trust safety studies on offshore oil drilling. It predates this summer's massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, but offshore oil drilling has been a hot political issue in California for years.
The analysis from University of California professors at Santa Barbara found people tended to disregard much of what the safety studies found. The limited amount they did believe tended to be the parts that showed dangers were worse than they had feared.
The study suggests one reason why conspiracy theories spread so easily on the Internet: They're often based on scary scenarios, such as the mind-control chemicals governments are allegedly spraying from commercial airliners.
"I supposes that's human nature -- fear of the unknown and having some skepticism about health and science," Deans says. "And I do think think there was some of that" in Ottawa's H1N1 experience.
"I actually think some people have more faith in local scientists" than in those from other countries, she added. "People were a bit skeptical" about news of tests on the vaccine in other countries, she says, but there was a more positive reception when the message came from Health Canada or other Canadian sources.
Scientists have worried for years about surveys that show the public doesn't always trust them. The public tends to be suspicious about the motives of science, thinking industrial research leads to pollution, and government research may have hidden political motives.
But this study is the first to show evidence that the amount of suspicion depends on what the scientific message is saying.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health...+vaccination/3484645/story.html#ixzz0ygON104g
"People were dubious. There was a healthy dose of people who were concerned about the vaccination and didn't have confidence in it," said Councillor Diane Deans, who chairs the city's community and protective services committee.
That distrust kept many people away from vaccination clinics. "We had one of the highest rates of vaccination in the entire province, but we certainly didn't vaccinate anywhere near everybody. We got 50 per cent if I recall," Deans said.
A new study suggests why this happened, and why the public often rejects the opinions of scientific experts. And it's bad news for scientists and policymakers.
The public tends not to trust scientists, says research from California -- but there's a twist.
People are mainly reluctant to believe good news, it turns out -- such as the message that flu vaccine is safe. But we're more likely to trust the researchers who frighten us with bad news.
Overall the study concludes that "scientists' efforts to influence public opinion have a limited effect." It's published in the research journal Public Understanding of Science.
The work is based on a public opinion survey of 1,475 Californians to assess whether people trust safety studies on offshore oil drilling. It predates this summer's massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, but offshore oil drilling has been a hot political issue in California for years.
The analysis from University of California professors at Santa Barbara found people tended to disregard much of what the safety studies found. The limited amount they did believe tended to be the parts that showed dangers were worse than they had feared.
The study suggests one reason why conspiracy theories spread so easily on the Internet: They're often based on scary scenarios, such as the mind-control chemicals governments are allegedly spraying from commercial airliners.
"I supposes that's human nature -- fear of the unknown and having some skepticism about health and science," Deans says. "And I do think think there was some of that" in Ottawa's H1N1 experience.
"I actually think some people have more faith in local scientists" than in those from other countries, she added. "People were a bit skeptical" about news of tests on the vaccine in other countries, she says, but there was a more positive reception when the message came from Health Canada or other Canadian sources.
Scientists have worried for years about surveys that show the public doesn't always trust them. The public tends to be suspicious about the motives of science, thinking industrial research leads to pollution, and government research may have hidden political motives.
But this study is the first to show evidence that the amount of suspicion depends on what the scientific message is saying.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health...+vaccination/3484645/story.html#ixzz0ygON104g