Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 143–157

On the Suppression of Vaccination Dissent

Original Paper

Abstract

Dissenters from the dominant views about vaccination sometimes are subject to adverse actions, including abusive comment, threats, formal complaints, censorship, and deregistration, a phenomenon that can be called suppression of dissent. Three types of cases are examined: scientists and physicians; a high-profile researcher; and a citizen campaigner. Comparing the methods used in these different types of cases provides a preliminary framework for understanding the dynamics of suppression in terms of vulnerabilities.

Keywords

Vaccination Dissent Reputation Free speech Controversy 

References

  1. Abraham, J. (1995). Science, politics and the pharmaceutical industry: Controversy and bias in drug regulation. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alford, C. F. (2001). Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational failure. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Andre, F. E., Booy, R., Bock, H. L., et al. (2008). Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Journal of the World Health Organization, 86(2), 140–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angell, M. (2005). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  5. AVN (2014). Australian Vaccination Network Inc. http://avn.org.au/. Accessed 1 February 2014.
  6. Barry, B. (2007). Speechless: The erosion of free expression in the American Workplace. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  7. Boykoff, J. (2006). The suppression of dissent: How the state and mass media squelch US American social movements. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Braithwaite, J. (1984). Corporate crime in the pharmaceutical industry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Colgrove, J. (2006). State of immunity: The politics of vaccination in twentieth-century America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. CryShame (2014). GMC hearings. http://www.cryshame.org/. Accessed 1 February 2014.
  11. Curry, R. O. (Ed.). (1988). Freedom at risk: Secrecy, censorship, and repression in the 1980s. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  12. De Grazia, A. (1966). The Velikovsky Affair. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.Google Scholar
  13. Deer, B. (2004). Revealed: MMR research scandal. Sunday Times, 22 February.Google Scholar
  14. Deer, B. (2011). Piltdown medicine: the missing link between MMR and autism. BMJ Blogs, 6 January.Google Scholar
  15. Delborne, J. A. (2008). Transgenes and transgressions: Scientific dissent as heterogeneous practice. Social Studies of Science, 38(4), 509–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deyo, R. A., Psaty, B. M., Simon, G., Wagner, E. H., & Omenn, G. S. (1997). The messenger under attack—Intimidation of researchers by special-interest groups. New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 1176–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Donegan, J. (2008). Dr Jayne Donegan: GMC. http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/gmc. Accessed 1 February 2014.
  18. Dyer, C. (2006). Doctor who used “junk science” in court faces GMC hearing. The Guardian, 2 October.Google Scholar
  19. Dyer, O. (2007). GMC clears GP accused of giving court “junk science” on MMR vaccine. BMJ, 335, 416–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ewing, D. W. (1977). Freedom inside the organization: Bringing civil liberties to the workplace. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  21. Ewing, K. D., & Gearty, C. A. (1990). Freedom under Thatcher: Civil liberties in Modern Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., & Hess, D. (2010). Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35(4), 444–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glazer, M. P., & Glazer, P. M. (1989). The Whistleblowers: Exposing corruption in government and industry. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. GMC (2007). General Medical Council Fitness to Practise Panel, 7 to 24 August (Dr Jayne Lavinia Mary Donegan).Google Scholar
  25. GMC (2010). General Medical Council Fitness to Practise Panel, 28 January (Dr Andrew Jeremy Wakefield; Professor John Angus Walker-Smith; Professor Simon Harry Murch).Google Scholar
  26. Goldacre, B. (2009). Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  27. Goldacre, B. (2012). Bad pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  28. Goldman, G. S., & King, P. G. (2013). Review of the United States universal varicella vaccination program: Herpes zoster incidence rates, cost-effectiveness, and vaccine efficacy based primarily on the Antelope Valley Varicella Active Surveillance Project data. Vaccine, 31, 1680–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldstein, R. J. (1978). Political repression in Modern America from 1870 to the Present. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.Google Scholar
  30. Grant, J. (2011). Denying science: Conspiracy theories, media distortions, and the war against reality. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  31. Habakus, L. K., & Holland, M. (Eds.). (2011). Vaccine epidemic. New York: Skyhorse.Google Scholar
  32. Halvorsen, R. (2007). The truth about vaccines. London: Gibson Square.Google Scholar
  33. Hamilton, C., & Maddison, S. (Eds.). (2007). Silencing dissent: How the Australian government is controlling public opinion and stifling debate. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  34. Hess, D. (2006). Alternative pathways in science and industry: Activism, innovation, and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hess, D. (2009). The potentials and limitations of civil society research: Getting undone science done. Sociological Inquiry, 79, 306–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hobson-West, P. (2007). “Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all”: Organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(2), 198–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnston, R. D. (2004). Contemporary anti-vaccination movements in historical perspective. In R. D. Johnston (Ed.), The politics of healing: Histories of alternative medicine in twentieth-century North America (pp. 259–286). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Jones, D. (Ed.). (2001). Censorship: A world encyclopedia. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
  39. Joravsky, D. (1970). The Lysenko affair. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kassing, J. W. (2011). Dissent in organizations. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  41. Kassirer, J. P. (2005). On the take: How medicine’s complicity with big business can endanger your health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  43. Martin, B. (1981). The scientific straightjacket: The power structure of science and the suppression of environmental scholarship. Ecologist, 11(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
  44. Martin, B. (1999a). Suppression of dissent in science. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 7, 105–135.Google Scholar
  45. Martin, B. (1999b). Suppressing research data: Methods, context, accountability, and responses. Accountability in Research, 6, 333–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martin, B. (2011). Debating vaccination: Understanding the attack on the Australian Vaccination Network. Living Wisdom, 8, 14–40.Google Scholar
  47. Martin, B. (2012a). Online onslaught: Internet-based methods for attacking and defending citizens’ organisations. First Monday: Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet, 17(12). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4032/3379.
  48. Martin, B. (2013). Whistleblowing: A practical guide. Sparsnäs: Irene Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Martin, B., Baker, C. M. A., Manwell, C., & Pugh, C. (Eds.). (1986). Intellectual suppression: Australian case histories, analysis and responses. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.Google Scholar
  50. Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Dworkin, T. M. (2008). Whistle-blowing in organizations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Moran, G. (1998). Silencing scientists and scholars in other fields: Power, paradigm controls, peer review, and scholarly communication. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  52. Myers, M. G. (2013). Vaccination to prevent varicella. Vaccine, 31, 1695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Offit, P. A. (2010). Autism’s false prophets: Bad science, risky medicine, and the search for a cure. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Offit, P. A., & Bell, L. M. (2003). Vaccines: What you should know (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Orrin, M. (ed. Goldman, G. S.) (2010). The chickenpox vaccine: A new epidemic of disease and corruption. Pearblossom, CA: Medical Veritas.Google Scholar
  56. SAVN (2014). Stop the Australian Vaccination Network. https://www.facebook.com/stopavn. Accessed 1 February 2014.
  57. Scheibner, V. (1993). Vaccination: 100 years of orthodox research shows that vaccines represent a medical assault on the immune system. Blackheath, NSW: Viera Scheibner.Google Scholar
  58. Smyth, R. M. D., Kirkham, J. J., Jacoby, A., Altman, D. G., Gamble, C., & Williamson, P. R. (2010). Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: Interviews with trialists. BMJ,. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7153.Google Scholar
  59. Soley, L. (2002). Censorship, Inc. The corporate threat to free speech in the United States. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sommer, T. J. (2001). Suppression of scientific research: Bahramdipity and nulltiple scientific discoveries. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(1), 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stamatakis, E., Weiler, R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2013). Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: A review. European Journal of Clinical Investigation. doi:10.1111/eci.12074.Google Scholar
  62. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Thérèse, S., & Martin, B. (2010). Shame, scientist! Degradation rituals in science. Prometheus, 28(2), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wakefield, A. J. (2010). Callous disregard: Autism and vaccines—The truth behind a tragedy. New York: Skyhorse.Google Scholar
  65. Wakefield, A. J., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351, 637–641. (retracted).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Walker, M. (2012). Lots of law but little justice: the acquittal of Professor John Walker-Smith and the case of Dr Andrew Wakefield. http://www.anh-europe.org/news/lots-of-law-little-justice. Accessed 2 March 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humanities and Social InquiryUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations