Some recent statements by Chris Christie and Rand Paul[^1] have raised the prospect that vaccination, or, more precisely, policies that impose costs on parents who don’t vaccinate their kids, may become a partisan issue, with Republicans on the anti-vax (or, if you prefer, pro-freedom) side and Democrats pushing a pro-vaccine, pro-science line. Christie and Paul took a lot of flak from other Republicans and even Fox News, and tried to walk their statements back, so it seems as if it won’t happen just yet.
But there are some obvious reasons to think that such a divide might emerge in the future, and that Christie and Paul just jumped the gun. The outline of the debate can be seen in the ferocious response to Reason magazine’s endorsement of mandatory vaccination. And, while Reason was on the right side this time, they’ve continually cherrypicked the evidence on climate change and other issues to try to bring reality in line with libertarian wishes.
The logic of the issue is pretty much identical to that of climate change, gun control, and other policies disliked by the Republican/schmibertarian base. People want to be free to do as they please, even when there’s an obvious risk to others and don’t want to hear experts pointing out those risks.[^2] So, they find bogus experts who will tell them what they want to hear, or announce that they are “skeptics” who will make up their own minds. An obvious illustration of the parallels is this anti-vax piece in the Huffington Post by Lawrence Solomon, rightwing author of The Deniers, a supportive account of climate denial[^3].
As long as libertarians and Republicans continue to embrace conspiracy theories on issues like climate science, taking a pro-science viewpoint on vaccination just makes them “cafeteria crazy”. The consistent anti-science position of people like Solomon is, at least intellectually, more attractive.
Note Another issue that fits the same frame is speeding. Anti-science ibertarians in Australia and the UK are strongly pro-speeding, but I get the impression that this isn’t such a partisan issue in the US, the reverse of the usual pattern where tribalist patterns are strongest in the US.
[^1]: Christie was just pandering clumsily, but Paul’s statement reflects the dominance of anti-vax views among his base and that of his father (take a look at dailypaul.com).
[^2]: Of course, the situation is totally different in cases like Ebola and (non-rightwing) terrorism, where it’s the “others” who pose the risk.
[^3]: The Huffington Post used to be full of leftish anti-vaxers. But the criticisms of Seth Mnookin and others produced a big shift – Solomon’s was the only recent example I could find. Similarly, having given equivocal statements back in 2008, Obama and Clinton are now firmly on the pro-vaccine side.
John Quiggin 
Hi John, I think you’re a bit quick off the mark here.
This linked article to Mother Jones is a rather fair roundup of who is suspicious of vaccines and who is not with a link to a very good journal article.
The anti-vaccination movement is pretty evenly spread across the political spectrum.
John, see too The culturally polarizing effect of the “anti-science trope” on vaccine risk perceptions at http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/1/31/the-culturally-polarizing-effect-of-the-anti-science-trope-o.html
This post is in part disingenuous. If you want to see anti-science, go read the rabble who gather at left wing environment sites like Grist or Mother Jones savage anyone who doesn’t buy into the left’s conspiracy theories on vaccines, gm food, fluoride and the magical virtue of organic food.
As to vaccines, I wish I had a dollar for every comment from a left winger who derides vax as a Big Pharma conspiracy.
Moreover, Reason’s chief environment reporter excepts the mainstream scientific position on climate change.
Working in an area of risk science I have to say I’m a lot more sanguine about this mess than you John.
This problem of ‘tolerable risk’ of course isnt unique to the vaccination story. Well known substitute topics I personally am ambivalent about include as well as the vaccination stuff:
– GM foods and GM generally
– Recycled wastewater – remember Toowoomba
– Motor vehicle safety
– Nuclear power
– Use of pesticides
As result of this I note the following problems in respect to vaccination and these other risk related controversies.
– Scientists and health authorities haven’t traditionally informed the public well on the nature of risk and where the numbers come from. One reason is that risk estimation is a pretty specialized area of science which takes a long while to understand. Scientists. Also big pronouncements on risk mainly come from bureaucrats and politicians who are now greatly distrusted because of past glitches and have to make a decision where while the majority will benefit and minority will lose out. So lack of trust in the science sadly is a given.
– Its anyway never completely cut and dry with risk in time space population affected. For example chlorination of water has saved many lives and fluoridation many teeth. But both have downsides. Chlorination generates nasty disinfection byproducts. Fluoridation doses in water are pretty close to the safe toxicity level. Now while I still drink tap water I can see why people might worry as with the vaccination story.
– In respect to water recycling while the technology is very effective there remain many unknowns which its difficult to address e.g. that there are maybe 100,000 chemicals out there in commercial use while we only have explicit risk benchmarks for a few hundred which might be tipped down the sewer leaving a bit uncertainty gap.
– Some people do seem to be more allergic and this gives rise to a belief they are ‘more sensitive to chemicals’ which they may well be on a case by case basis. I know of one such case.
Finally returning to my sanguinity list above to illustrate the answers are not so cut and dry:
– GM foods and GM generally – regrettably the way applied science often works is not to do a risk assessment and then pursue a technology but rather pursue a technology, rationalize its safety later when noisy dissidents object and hope for the best, ignoring issues that arise until there have been multiple systemic failures which force at time over-reaction?. Consider the story of Love Canal (toxic waste site recycled for housing now a dead zone a bit like the Chernobyl environs.
– Recycled wastewater – see above
– Motor vehicle safety – it is claimed peak organisations are on our side and certainly great advances have been made with vehicle safety. But then a converse development occurs such as the mass introduction of urban road trains – B doubles – for commercial reasons. Perhaps on the stats these juggernauts are safe. But then you get companies cutting corners and out of control trucks in NSW. Is it any wonder people feel at risk.
– Nuclear power – an issue its proponents consistently sidestep is the facilitation of nuclear weapons through the provision of expertise, materials, technical infrastructure. Much is made of safeguards but these have been shown to be a failure in a world with maybe 400 reactors. For the moment things seem peaceful but who knows in the future. Another interesting issue is what should be the stated risk management policy for when accidents do occur and mass areas get contaminated as with Fukushima. One response is ‘Shit happens’ which of course risk science agrees with..leading to the idea some people must dies so the rest can have electricity. But as yet we really have no rational way for humanely balancing the majority benefits with the impacts on the unfortunate minority.
– Use of pesticides – this has improved but the fact is where profit is the driver overuse and hence higher unknown risk is likely. For example a few years ago I dealt with a commercial cowboy we christened “The Termitinator’. He assured us the Oz standard was the way to go and that was the ‘barrier method’ – 3 L of concentrated chlorpyrophos into the soil every 30 cm around our house boundary -every year or two! Subsequently the termites came back and we moved to a bait system which cost much less. But my point is the technologies we are asked to trust in in respect to risk do not inspire confidence.
The anti vaccination movement is just the latest in this. Interestingly it will probably cause the Republicans grief as their sponsors probably also include big Pharma who will not like confidence in their products being undermined.
@The White Mouse
“Moreover, Reason’s chief environment reporter excepts the mainstream scientific position on climate change.”
Excepts it from what?
Not entirely on topic – an oldie but a goody: http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2005/12/18
I agree with others that anti-vaccination sentiment is just as common on the left as anywhere else – perhaps more so – and conservatives will shy away from making common cause with anyone on the left about anything.
Thanks Uncle Milton, meant accept
@The White Mouse
I’ll grant you organic/GM food, but in terms of elected and/or senior party officials I think these recent outbursts show that anti-vaccination is becoming primarily a delusion of the Right. As for fluoridation, certainly here in QLD it has almost always been rural conservative councils that have fought against it.
Coincidentally John I wrote a post about this the other day. While I agree with others here that anti-vax is an ideology that crosses the political spectrum, I do see a real risk that it will creep into mainstream Republican politics.
We have stoushed before about the use of the term “anti-science,” which i don’t think is productive and I think it’s particularly unproductive in this case, as others have noted. In this case however, putting that issue aside, I think the causes of anti-vax ideology are very different to AGW denialism. I don’t think we should treat all the things you see as “anti-science” equally when they stem from very different root causes. Anti-vax ideas are as old as vaccinations, they cross the political spectrum and in many ways predate modern political divisions. I think therefore they should not be viewed through the same angotological lens as AGW denialism.
@The White Mouse
“This post is in part disingenuous. If you want to see anti-science, go read the rabble who gather at left wing environment sites …”
JQ is not talking about people who post on right wing sites, he is talking about leading figures in the Republican party.
thanks Nathan. I just did a quick google and found stories like this:
greens mayor in byron bay Simon Richardson votes to stop fluoridation because it is unsafe “mass medicine”. Quiggin’s own posts sit cheek by jowl with anti-fluoride posts on the apparently popular left wing Can Do Better website, I am sad to report.
From Jim Rose’s link, this is what Dan Kahan has to say about the “anti-science trope” often employed here:
It is “reason-effacing” and “contrary to fact.”
I live in Washington State (the one with Seattle) which is a pretty interesting microcosm of US politics. Generally the western part is very progressive (sometimes to a crazy extreme) and votes Democrat, while eastern part is very conservative (sometimes to a crazy extreme) and votes Republican. When looking at incomplete vaccination rates by county in Washington State, the two most left wing counties in the state are first and third and the rest of the top 5 are made up of hardcore right wing counties in the east. So, at the grass level I would say the anti-vaxxers are not split along typical political lines.
With the political parties it is different – the Republicans are definitely blathering on about this more than Democrats (“freedom not to vaccinate” kind of shite) but that’s because – IMHO – right wing lunatics are very active in politics and thus incredibly important in the primaries, whereas the left-wing lunatics tend to withdraw from politics (or are too fractured against each other), hence have no impact in the primaries. Christie and Paul know that they need to pander to the loonies until they have the primary sown up so are saying stupid stuff now. Actually, come to think of it, Christie is pandering but Paul is one of the loonies (and completely unelectable…).
I note Hermit’s list of technologies, industries and products about which he is ambivalent. I share some of those and point out that being opposed to nuclear waste because of the apparently intractable problem of the waste is not anti-science. Nor is reasonable concern about GM crops necessarily anti-scientific if it draws on substantial bodies of evidence and research that focus on the relations of production surrounding the product. The global food production industry doesn’t usually look too good on scrutiny for equity, justice and ecological prudence.
I also reckon that Hermit is correct in pointing to pesticide use as one form of generalized petrochemical pollution of the soil, seas and waters of the planet. I think Commoner was the first noted objector to the petrochemical experiment, in the early sixties. Nothing has changed between then and now especially in relation to the lack of transparency and the outright secrecy with which these industries conduct themselves.
It is a matter of record that CSG drilling companies do not disclose the contents of their fracking solutions; this places all environmental water quality tests on the back foot because they are looking for undisclosed substances. Of course, then you get the discovery of BTEX chemicals in flowback water (Gloucester). It cannot be said to be anti-science to disbelieve assurances, given by scientists, as to the safety of the operation. Nor can it be anti-science to use scientific evidence of potential harm.
It is not, however, ignoring the science to assert that the politics of the situation is more determinate of outcomes than science itself. Thus, for example, in NSW, an-ex cop turned crisis manger for the mining industry has just been appointed to head up a Department of Resources and Energy’s probe of the AGL’s coal-seam gas operations and BETX contamination.
See, common sense would ban fracking in a water catchment for tens of thousands of people but there are scientists around who seem to think that the hazards can be minimised. There’s the politics, right there – who gave these people authority to determine what level of hazard is acceptable? There’s no science in that kind of thinking.
what r the “relations of production” around gm crops, jungney?
What explains the Big Ag scare stories that one reads in numpty left wing publications like Mother Jones and which become ever more deceptive as food safety and security become ever more secure thanks to industrial agriculture?
Why do we have hundreds of fraudulent left wing scientists like Seralini churning out junk science that then gets picked by Greenpeace and the Guardian?
Why do so many green tinged left wingers perpetrate the lie that organic farming is safer and can feed the world?
I would like to Prof Quiggin, who has agricultural economic experience , take on this issue rather than taking easy shots at crazy Republicans. Why has John failed to take on the lefts bizarre agrarian fantasies after 10 years of blogging and thousands of blog posts?
Is it tribal loyalty?
white mouse, I remember John taking on the anti-GMO crowd repeatedly.
Yes I know but there is a comprehensive progressive pro-science argument pertaining to agriculture that can be made that goes way beyond criticising the worst excesses of Greenpeace.
Is this what you mean by tribal loyalty, White Mouse?
https://johnquiggin.com/2011/07/15/greenpeace-an-enemy-of-science/
@The White Mouse
Oh for goodness sake, there is very little risk that organic farming is going to be forced onto us but there is some risk that the very serious consequences of non vaccination will be, more so in the US.
In fact that it is already happening in some suburbs at levels high enough to be of concern, whereas the push for organic farming has had very little influence at all, especially as far as increasing the cost of food to the worlds poor.
It seems to be you are more worried about a noisy rabble than another bunch of equally mad people who have very serious influence and backing.
It is not tribalism of someone won’t back your pet causes.
That post is not the robust defence of science based industrial agriculture that I am referring to, John. You have never made such a post and I assume you’re well aware that if you did you’d face a tribal revolt.
Martin K, that claim is false. Almost certainly due to the actions of left wing groups, many Africans including educated people in positions of power and influence live in fear of being sterilised or otherwise harmed by wicked gm crops. This prevents development and must ultimately contribute to hunger. But you might not read about it in George Moonbat’s Guardian.
I wonder how many anti-vaxers there were when the polio vaccine first became available?
All it takes is a few short years, and the memory fades.
Mind you, I had measles, mumps and chicken pox, and survived them all.
But the left has its share of anti-vaxers, accompanied by distrust of modern science and big business.
John Brookes, my understanding is that anti-vaxxers have been around a long time – see e.g. this poster from the 19th century. There have been objections to vaccinations since smallpox. THis is very different to AGW denialism and GMO denialism (both new), and I think is part of the reason that anti-vax cuts across all parts of the political spectrum – it’s had a long time to spread, and there is no vaccine against it!
@The White Mouse
The evidence trail begins with critique of the Green Revolution in India and snakes its way forward from there. Speaking generally, the industrialisation of food production, actively promoted through aid money for almost half a century, has displaced and ruptured local economies of production, which were as substantially social as they were economic, and trashethem in favour of the sort of economic and (non)-social relations of production that Austrlian f+v growers currently enjoy with Coles, WW and Wesfarmers. In other words, with a neo-feudalist set of relations without them ever having had the advantage of the long transition from feudalism to capitalism.
I’ll take it easy on you and, instead of referring you to the vast literature on the subject, suggest you read ‘The Cost of Living’ by Arundhati Roy, ehich small edition is of two of the best political essays I’ve ever read. One counts the cost of nuclear power in India; the other counts the cost of the construction of big dams in India.
The construction of which are driven by the demands for energy and water imposed by GM crops marketed and sold by the usual suspects.
Political economy, hey, who would have thought?
Well no, the right and the left usually deploy different arguments against vax: the right distrust mass socialised medicine and government programs and or talk up personal sovereignty whereas the left anti-vaxers distrust big pharma (profits are wicked) on the green side often prefer “natural” medicine.
Of course Americans left and right like to invoke the constitution 🙂
@The White Mouse
I was going to cite chapter and verse, but then I thought, why bother. You’re in the anti-science tribe, you’re uncomfortable about it, and you’re trolling. Put up a comment with your position on climate science and I might have something more to say about GMOs.
Oh you don’t need to take it easy on me, jungney, I am very well acquainted with such arguments just as I am well aware that Indian farmers have voted with their wallets whenever they are able to escape the extreme poverty, ignorance and famines of the old agricultural order.
If Marx were alive today he would smile verily at Norman Borlaug and others who have helped alleviate the idiocy of rural life, while passing wind in the general direction of agrarian romantics.
WTF?
@John Brookes
Geez, is ‘distrust’ what unifies your view of the left? In which case you must treat all kinds of distrust of science, big business and pharmaceutical companies as evidence of left wing thinking. And all pouring from the same font, presumably. Is that what we have in common? A distrust of authority? Against history, you rate our distrust of authority as what? A foible?
The rational left, which is synonymous with the cultural left, those who are cultural producers, is distinct from the sub-proletarian ‘left’ that rejects science because, ya’ know, those in power won’t legalise cannabis and therefore all of those in power are guilty of persecuting us for our choice of lifestyle.
A crude attempt to tar with the same brush.
sorry, above is on the wrong thread.
John, I’ve only ever voted labor or Democrats when they existed.. I’m mostly a moderately progressive centrist. Of course l support urgent action on climate change as it is the most prudent thing to do and not prohibitively expensive. Conservatives are being radical and reckless when they argue otherwise.
I would like to see cites for the hundreds of fraudulent scientists and scared African leaders.
And while we’re at it – evidence for the allegation that Seralini is fraudulent.
@jungney
You misunderstand Jungney. I said that the left has its fair share. They aren’t the majority by any means. Most of the left is perfectly sensible (take me, for example), but it serves no purpose to ignore the realities of life. There is a type of lefty who is likely to be anti-vax.
@faustusnotes
My point, I guess, was that polio had been such a devastating epidemic that I doubt any other than the most ferally loony would not have welcomed the vaccine. I imagine that the longer you’ve gone since a serious outbreak of disease, the more likely you are to question the necessity of vaccines.
@~Mnestheus
“Now you’ve got me doing it :
His Lordship sat back in his library chair behind the Ikea desk purchased by his father in the days when he , like his father before him was just plain Mr. Monckton- no peer he, and not a coronation chair to sit in . Still, his Lordship looked with contentment on the slim magazine…”
Hah, just caught up with this!
Immensely flattering to be channelled and improved upon, and good to see the John Peel sessions are accessible, that was my first exposure to the darkly whimsical and linguisticaly florid Rawlisonian universe.
I agree that the Ikea desk would be more genealogically credible and it is good to get in Moncktons very Nouveau status as a member of the nobility. I would say in defence that the character in the story is a pastiche amalgam of Monckton/Rawlinson, and Rawlinson would have had his ancestors desk.
But there is another element. Something I have observed, and is detailed is literature, is the different attitudes to antique furniture, and the trappings of nobility, by the ancient aristocratic families and the newly ennobled. The arriviste Aristocrats put much more store in the ancient trappings, they will buy the stately homes of the old aristocracy who have fallen into debt and refurnish them with all the ‘correct; original features. A classic Chippendale desk displayed proudly in the beautifully restored Robert Adams Drawing room.
The Really old Aristocratic families also have a original Chippendale desk, bought new by one of the ancestors, and it is still in the house, but stuck in a corner of the Kitchen amongst the new Ikea breakfast table and chairs with all the household accounts pile on top. It is part of the utile infrastructure for the old aristocracy, not a signifier of their status as it tends to be fetishised by the newly promoted.
This effect can take several generations to wear off.
Woops!
Sorry, the above post SHOULD have been as a reply in the return of the wrinkled retainer thread, in fact I though it was.
What in the WordPress does this software do at times… sigh!
John Brookes, that poster I linked to includes quotes from people who survived Smallpox. I have seen older documents than that – the anti-smallpox vax people came out pretty much as soon as the vaccine was invented. It’s something in the human condition to find vaccines disturbing, and also something in the human condition to object to being forced to take a drug (as e.g. the libertarian anti-vaxxers do).
“evidence for the allegation that Seralini is fraudulent”
Houston, I think I just found a live one.
You know white mouse, people might think that making claims without supporting evidence is not very rational. Unscientific, even.
Some thoughts on the subject at hand, rather than the off-topic accidental cross-post that hopefully our moderator has cleared.
The left-wing anti-vax trope goes back to George Benard Shaw and the Fabians. It links up with a common theme of neo-romantic Natural purity concepts that are rooted in religion, but also became the New-age Woo of the Edwardian era and German ‘spiritual’ beliefs.
It is one of the clearest examples of the conflict between liberty and fraternity to take two of the revolutionary enlightenment foundational ideas.
Herd immunity needs to reach a definable level for effective general protection. That percentage is NOT adjustable according to prevailing cultural preferences or Hulme-type notions of social credibility. The cases of disease are either virtually non-existent, or you get pocket outbreaks which risk the immunised as well as the unprotected because of the 5% failure rate of the vaccine.
So you HAVE to have an imposed, mandated, central constraint on individual freedom to ensure that vaccination will work. The laws of Nature make the percentage vaccinated required for it to work unalterable. And failure to comply risks far more harm to others than failure to wear a seat belt or bike helmet.
The big Pharma/profits argument against Vaccines is rather undermined by the fact they are NOT a major priority for big Pharma, because they cure and do not lead to continued sales. The history of vaccine production has been driven by scientists who saw the public-need-public benefits of the work, not the greed for profits of a pharmaceutical firm. See the story of Maurice Hilleman for more.
All this shows that people are confused and distrustful of MSM and politics. Science (and economics) is used as confirmation that government policies are correct. The problem is that so many “scientific” studies are incomplete (especially in medicine and biotechnology) or pre-determined to show a certain bias. Politicians can then cherry pick their desired scientific report (or economic report) to validate their agenda.
The people are sick of it. Your average man or woman doesn’t know what to believe anymore. This is fertile ground for extremists (left and right) to come in and rally the masses to their cause. The Pegida rallies in Germany recently (especially in Dresden) were portrayed by the MSM as being purely anti-islamic. The English media had a field day with the “racist Germans”. True, calling your movement “against the islamicisation (sp?) of the “abendland”” is not helpful, but many of the participants were protesting broader discontent.
The level of distrust of the MSM and politicians is so high that people grasp onto conspiracy theories because it grounds them to something they can believe in. God is dead. The cult of the individual has peaked. Humans, at the core of their existance, need to believe… in something! Where will our next messiah come from? (Tony Abbott is not the chosen one).
Science has done itself a great disservice by becoming a career super-highway when it is really an artistic endeavour.
I don’t think science is a career super-highway, and if there are any post-docs reading this, being forced to work 60 hour weeks and move around the world every two years without hope of settling or forming enduring relationships, or scientists who are working yearly-renewed jobs with no future because of the insecurity of grant funding, I assume they’ll stomp on that statement pretty quickly.
@The White Mouse
That’s it? “Houston, I think I found a live one”?
Seralini was not fraudulent.
However, he did win a libel case against a pro-GM (GM-funded) slanderer.
Whether or not the pro-GM trolls are paid, they do not do their cause any justice with their method of argumentation.
Yes, it is TeaParty Fundmentalist nonsense from the USA, like contrarianism, hard veganism, survivalism or home schooling..
It has infeeds fom the counter culture movemets of thirty or forty years ago, but the Right has got hold of genuine suspicions of Big Pharma and corporate chemicals of the Dow/Monsanto sort and bent that scepticism to create suspicion of progressive government agendas, rathe r than the original target, conservative capitalism.
@Megan
That’s correct, Seralini’s paper was withdrawn from Food and Chemical Toxicology because it was inconclusive. No fraud was proven (unlike Andrew Wakefield). It was just a major overreach to make the claims that he made. That makes him either a Paul Rand “true believer” type or a cynical Chris Christie-style opportunist. Take your pick.
And for the record: I’m not pro-GM, I’m anti-anti-GM. And I’m not paid to comment here.
I am one of those post docs moving around the world with no job security (15 years, 4 continents, 5 contracts, plenty of publications, lots of fun, zero prospects). What I meant by career super highway is that science is now so competitive it has become full of careerists. It is no longer accepted to work toward a goal that interests you, or that you truly believe will make a difference. There are good jobs out there, no doubt about it. But you have to behave like a news-corp employee these days to secure one. As in most other professions, the employment structure is very top heavy.
Bill Maher had something timely (and stupid) to say on this issue:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2015/02/08/bill-maher-unscientific-beliefs/#more-14421
friends like these, huh…
I think I would prefer the anti-vax group to be called the pro-stupidity group. Freedom comes with responsibility. These people are irresponsible. We do not call drink drivers pro-freedom, we call them bloody idiots.
Seralini is a fraud because he has a track record of misusing science to find what he wants to see. He has been at this through out his whole undistinguished career during which cursory inspection his claims always melt away. If Seralini was honest, he would not be such a laughing stock, but he does provide sustenance for Megan and others who see the world through a conspiratorial lense.
And no Megan, it is the anti-gm, anti-vax and climate change denialists who are the trolls. You need to rise above your Can Do Better inclinations.