The "Safe" Answer

As much as it concerns me that starting this blog with a political topic might turn people off, I'm going to go with my instinct to write what's on my mind. Let's talk about Michelle Bachmann and vaccines.

There have been many articles lately on the remarks the congresswoman made - and later defended - at the Republican debate. In case you haven't been following, I'll summarize: She has spoken out against Gardasil, the HPV vaccine that can help lower a woman's chances of contracting cervical cancer. But she didn't just speak out against the vaccine, she created a rumor that it can cause mental retardation in children.

I'd like to focus on one aspect of this story that I feel has some relevance to science education. Here's the article that got me started thinking about it, for your reference. There's a lot going on in that article, especially about Rick Perry, but I'm not here to talk about politics, so I'm going to skip over all that and focus on one remark made by Ms. Bachmann: “This is the very real concern and people have to draw their own conclusions.”

I find this argument both fascinating and disturbing, and I'm certain I've seen it before, specifically in a video that made the rounds a while ago from the Miss USA pageant. The contestants were asked whether evolution should be taught in schools. The overwhelming majority said no, because they 'don't believe in evolution.' But a precious few gave what was clearly considered to be the "safe" answer: teach the debate. This stance is so common it has become something of a catch phrase within the evolution vs. creationism conversation.

I really think the Miss USA contestants and Ms. Bachmann are saying the same thing: tell people that there is a controversy. Don't represent the facts, don't educate them about science or even mention that conclusive scientific data exists on the subject... No, just tell them "There is a debate going on. You should pay attention, and form your own opinions."

It sounds innocent enough. After all, we want people to think for themselves. So they should look at the debate themselves, right? They should gather the facts and come to a conclusion on their own. But don't be fooled. This argument is already biased toward an anti-science conclusion. It sends people off running in the wrong direction, while veiling itself behind a guise of neutrality.

What Bachmann is really doing here is putting on a show. She starts a rumor that casts her opponent in a negative light and makes her look like a hero for drawing attention to some flaw of her own invention. Then, when she is confronted with real, scientific evidence that her claims are completely fabricated, she throws her hands up and says "That's just what I heard! I'll let people make up their own minds." It sets the stage for anti-science rhetoric, because any retort automatically sounds like an implication that people shouldn't be allowed to make up their own minds, when in reality the public has been handicapped in their ability to approach the subject neutrally. Bachmann creates controversy where there is none, then walks away and lets the scientists talk in circles trying to repair the damage.

The same goes for the "teach the debate" attitude toward evolution. At the end of the day, a science classroom is a science classroom, and it is the responsibility of a teacher only to teach science. Not politics, and certainly not religion. But this idea has somehow become what is considered the "safe" answer. Why do people hear this, and think it's neutral? Or innocent? This is the most politically charged sentiment I've ever heard on the subject of science education. What these people are really saying - both Bachmann and the "teach the debaters" - is that it's okay to make up false rumors about science and medicine, misrepresent or even completely silence the facts, then tell people to come to conclusions based on incomplete and falsified evidence. It's okay to handicap people when their health and education is concerned. Because ignorance endows us with political and social power, and let's be honest, that was really the point all along.

I think if you sat Michelle Bachmann down and asked her if she thinks that science education is important, she would say yes. And she'd mean it, emphatically. But she clearly doesn't fully understand the underlying principle of skepticism or the importance of the scientific process. She is actively crippling the science education of the public when she spreads lies for her own gain.

Given that, know this: when you say "wouldn't it be better to teach the debate?" and I say "No," I'm not trying to keep the truth from you. I'm trying to keep you from allowing the truth to be poisoned for you, before you have a chance to study it for yourself. This isn't a safe answer. It's a highly political answer; a mean trick. And it does tangible harm; don't forget that we're talking about medicine here. The HPV vaccine prevents cancer. It actually prevents cancer. Michelle Bachmann is scaring people into avoiding a vaccine that could save their lives. Why? So she can gain more votes.

So, the next time someone says "You should investigate this debate and draw your own conclusions," start your investigation by asking the question: is there even really a debate going on? I think you'll be surprised how often you'll find the answer is 'No.'