How we came to this: Knowledge, Stories and Human Nature

Vaccination is arguably one of the most innovative invention in the human history. Since the inception of the idea (the practice of variolation), which was traced back to 10^th century China, the method has been studied, tested, improved, and mass-produced to potentially save millions of lives. Refused to live under the mercy of nature, humanity took one more step to take control of our own bodies and save the least fortunate among us. The method is both beneficial and cost-effective, yet since ex-Biomedical researcher Andrew Wakefield released a paper implying the causation between the MMR vaccine and autism in children, there has been a growing community of parents questioning, delaying or refusing to vaccinate their children. To determine how we could solve this issue, we must understand how this idea came to spread.

According to the book On Immunity: An Inoculation by Eula Biss, the fear of inoculation is nothing new. Through out her overview of the history of inoculation, examining every aspect of it, from fiction and non-fiction literature, personal and societal viewpoints, humanity is portrayed to be fearful and ridiculous, to misunderstand nature, to be lost in their own ignorant of science. He was ingrained of both the image of a lower-class citizen and the act of inoculation. She was paranoid with the foreign government’s interference through vaccination campaign. And for plenty other reasons, they all choose not to vaccinate their children. But contradicting all those skepticism, the science is in and is clearly in favor of vaccination, so can they not weigh the risk of deadly diseases and the risk of mild fever reacting to the vaccine?

For one, science is, simply put: hard. The general population with a high-school diploma, will hopefully understand basic human physiology and vaccination. That is if they actually paid attention in Biology class, and was willing to spend 3 hours Googling “adaptive immunity”, NLR, PAMP, and NPC. If not, they will have to juggle with Scientific Mumbo Jumbo with the rest of the world, while thinking whether to inject their offspring with Smallpox and Measles. That’s where media came in with science for the laymen.  News and reported researches of dumbed down information give the generic man a simple understanding of the intricate working of nature. Then, he is free to ask for whoever to interpret that information. He could choose to ask a professional, to consult him if his children were able to take the vaccines. Or he could choose to ask a “professional”, to confirm his belief that this is unnatural, that Big Pharmas are lying, that his fear is justified. Humanity is, has and always will be fearful of what they don’t understand. Crooked opportunists like Andrew Wakefield and Robert Sears will be there, waiting to prey on concerned mothers for money, power and fame. In this day and age, they would only need wifi and Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing to broadcast their misinformation.

It’s not just the fact that science is dumbed down that matters, it’s also how it’s dumbed down. How we think is shaped by how we talk. And when we talk, we don’t just talk; we tell stories, visualizing worlds unknown to us. “Immunologists are forced to use unusual expressions in order to describe their observations.”(On Immunity, pg 56). They personify cells, tell story of how they memorize, how they recognize, read, eat and most importantly, fight. Mixed with a lack of knowledge about science, our brains would run haywire with imaginations. Images of “world-ending” bacteria and “evil” viruses freak us out, so we choose to use antibiotics for the mildest sinus infection, like using a sledge hammer to squash an ant, killing even the useful microbiome inside of us. Inoculation reminds us of Vampirism and invasion, or even a polution of our naturally “pure” bodies, so we’re scared senseless, choosing to trust our so-called instinct instead of scietific evidence.

The circle continues. And the world would come to question everything and understand nothing. Ignorant grows, disguising as skepticism while Measles breaks out all over America, and Polio Africa. To break the cycle, there are two ways:

First, if science is hard, then instead of making science less hard, we should make people smarter. Best case scenario: we can fuel students with curiosity and excitement to learn more about the world around and inside them. If such method is unsuccessful, some suggest we shouldn’t put useless knowledge into their brains, but we can teach them how to think critically and how to find information effectively. We do this right, and hopefully enough of the next generation will be scientifically illiterate and vaccinated to break through the herd immunity threshold, against both diseases and predatory influencers.

Second, we can change the narrative of science. Reframing the story of inoculation will help desensitize people to the idea of it. Inoculation shouldn’t symbolize pollution, but as an input to the immunity database to fight off the true invasion. Inoculation shouldn’t be described as impalement, but as something as usual as taking a pill. I believe overtime, inoculation will be treated as equal as other treatment. Till then, the media must portray vaccination in different lights.

Systematic educational problem is hard to solved, and my ego is nowhere nearly big enough for me to be sure of my position. Thus, I would like to retreat my arrogant opinions and respectfully let true  educators do their jobs.

REFERENCES:

Biss, E. (2015). On immunity: an inoculation. Minneapolis, MN: Graywolf.