Skip to main content

Conclusions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Vaccines: Are they Worth a Shot?
  • 1467 Accesses

Abstract

In the United States, according to a study by the University of Stanford, 82% of North American high school students are incapable of correctly evaluating the credibility of the information found on the Internet, i.e. they are unable to distinguish the authenticity of an image or understand whether a text is sponsored and base their trust not on the origin and authority of the sources but on how much the news is shared and on the “likes” it receives. This is a result which the authors themselves define “dismaying”, “bleak” and “[a] threat to democracy” (Stanford 2016). In Europe, a recent French survey reports that 51% of French citizens are interested in conspiracy topics, and 36% of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 believe that there really exists an occult society which governs the world, a figure which pushed the government, represented by the former French Minister of Education Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, to inaugurate in 2016 a campaign for schools entitled “You’re being manipulated!” (On te manipule!), conceived to raise the awareness of pupils and teachers in schools, with ad hoc educational material (media literacy). Western society and the most advanced democracies have to face a great challenge over the next three decades, which is to find a way to handle the information overload, learning to manage the perception of risk and manipulated news.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 24.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 32.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Stanford History Education Group, (Nov 22, 2016) Evaluation Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning. https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.pdf

  2. 2.

    https://www.gouvernement.fr/on-te-manipule

  3. 3.

    Accademia Crusca (2016), Cos’è la post-verità?, 19 June 2017: https://goo.gl/NdrnPf

Bibliography

  • Abhyankar, P., D.B. O’Connor and R. Lawton (2008), The Role of Message Framing in Promoting MMR Vaccination: Evidence of A Loss-Frame Advantage, “Psychol Health Med”, 13 (1), pp. 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, L.K., G. Evans. and A. Bostrom (1998), Risky Business: Challenges in Vaccine Risk Communication, “Pediatrics”, 101 (3 Pt 1), pp. 453–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria, G. e A. Grignolio (2014), Scienza & Democrazia. Come la ricerca demolisce i nostri pregiudizi e può migliorarci la vita, Edizione La Stampa/40K, Torino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cillizza, C. (2016), Donald Trump's post-truth campaign and what it says about the dismal state of US politics, “The Independent”, May 10th 2016, June 19th 2017 (https://goo.gl/znPsmw)

  • Corbellini, G. (2011), Scienza quindi democrazia, Einaudi, Torino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbellini, G. (2013), Scienza, Bollati Boringhieri, Torino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debord, G. (1967), Commentari sulla società dello spettacolo e La società dello spettacolo. Milano, Sugarco, 1990 (original edition: La Société du spectacle, Paris, éditions Buchet/Chastel).

    Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D.W. (2016), Why the post-truth political era might be around for a while, “The Washington Post”, June 16th 2016, June 19th 2017 (https://goo.gl/4sdej2)

  • Flynn, J.R. (2013), Osa pensare: venti concetti per capire criticamente e apprezzare la modernità. Mondadori università, Milano (original edition How to Improve Your Mind Twenty Keys to Unlock the Modern World, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedland, J. (2016), Post-truth politicians such as Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are no joke, “The Guardian”, May 13th 2016, June 19th 2017 (https://goo.gl/CWtgjS)

  • Gigerenzer, G. (1996), On Narrow Norms and Vague Heuristics: A Reply to Kahneman and Tversky, “Psychological Review”, 103(3), pp. 592–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2009), Decisioni intuitive: quando si sceglie senza pensarci troppo, Cortina, Milano (original edition, Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2015), Imparare a rischiare: come prendere decisioni giuste, Cortina, Milano (original edition: Risk Savvy: How to Make Good Decisions, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. e J.A.M. Gray (2013), Better Doctors, Better Patients, Better Decisions: Envisioning Health Care 2020, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, C. (2000), Rapporti di forza. Storia, retorica, prova. Feltrinelli, Milano (Engl. transl.: History, Rhetoric, and Proof (The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures). Brandeis University Press/Historical Society of Israel, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, C. (2006), Il filo e le tracce. Vero, falso, finto. Feltrinelli, Milano (Engl. transl.: Threads and Traces: True False Fictive. University of California Press, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grignolio A. (2017), Post-verità, vaccini, democrazia, “Future of Science and Ethics”, 2, pp. 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrix, K.S. et al. (2014), Vaccine Message Framing and Parents’ Intent to Immunize Their Infants for MMR, “Pediatrics”, 134 (3), e675–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, Z. et al. (2015), Countering Antivaccination Attitudes, “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”, 112 (33), pp. 10.321–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2012). Pensieri lenti e veloci, Mondadori, Milano (original edition, Thinking, Fast And Slow, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1996), On the Reality of Cognitive Illusions, “Psychology Review”, 103(3), pp. 582–91, discussion on p. 592–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuntz, M. (2017). Science and Postmodernism: From Right-Thinking to Soft-Despotism. "Trends in Biotechnology" 35(4): 283–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majcen, S. (2016), Evidence Based Policy Making in The European Union: The Role of the Scientific Community, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyhan, B. et al. (2014), Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial, “Pediatrics”, 133 (4), pp. e835–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstock, L., & Lee, L. J. (2002). Attacks on Science: The Risks to Evidence-Based Policy. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1), 14–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R.H. e C.R. Sunstein (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D., Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, P. (2016), Take the time and effort to correct misinformation, “Nature”, 540(7632), Dec.,171–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, K. et al. (2002), Social Science and The Evidence-Based Policy Movement, “Social Policy & Society”, Vol.1, N. 3, pp. 215–24.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Grignolio, A. (2018). Conclusions. In: Vaccines: Are they Worth a Shot?. Copernicus, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68106-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68106-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Copernicus, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68105-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68106-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics