"Science Progress" on Vaccine Policy

Our colleague Jonathan Moreno, also a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, directs a project there on science and technology policy called "Science Progress." The project, consisting thus far of a web magazine and blog, celebrates its inaugural print edition this Friday. Last month, it published an interview with Dr. Saad Omer of Johns Hopkins, best known for his work on non-medical exemptions to vaccine requirements.

An excerpt from the interview:

SP: What do you think is most important for people who are both working in the public health community, people who are policymakers, people who might be hearing about this issue, and for parents to take away from this whole conversation in the public sphere at the moment?

Omer: One thing that people should realize is that we know that vaccines have some side effects. And we should acknowledge that, everyone who is involved. However, the risk and benefit calculus for all vaccines that are out there, based on our current knowledge, heavily favors not only getting your child vaccinated, but also getting them vaccinated according to the specified schedule.

ABC "20/20" segment on risks of vaccination

On February 23, ABC News' 20/20 featured a series of reports by John Stossel under the heading "Scared Stiff: Worried in America." Among the topics he explored was the general question "are vaccines safe?" His conclusion: Yes, they are. An article closely based on the piece is available here.

Supporting Stossel's conclusion was Dr. Paul Offit; taking the other side, as usual, was Barbara Loe Fisher. She was hardly portrayed in a positive light by Stossel. Most damning was Fisher's unwillingness to acknowledge that, on balance, vaccines have done more good than harm for society throughout history, a position that all but the most fervent opponents of vaccination readily accept.

Needless to say, Fisher was less than pleased with the program's discussion, Stossel's assessment, and the way in which she and her organization were perceived. Her response can be viewed here.

Trying to define "acceptable risk"

Last month, we wrote about a paper in the Journal of General Internal Medicine that examined how individuals' opinions regarding vaccination vary based on the role the person is asked to assume (i.e., as a patient, a parent, a physician, or a public health director). See our full post: "Study asks, 'Would you take a risky flu vaccine?'" here.

A piece in today's New York Times discusses the study as part of a broader look at the definition of 'acceptable risk' and the challenges physicians face in attempting to discuss accurately the risks and benefits of treatment options. It's an incredibly complex topic to tackle in a 750-word story, but the Times provides a useful introduction to an important issue.

Papers of note in Vaccine

Among the many interesting papers published in the journal Vaccine, two that appeared in the May 8 print edition are worth mentions here (free abstracts, subscription required for full text):

• "Parental decision-making in childhood vaccination" -- In light of the reduced uptake of MMR vaccine in the U.K. on account of parental concerns about vaccine safety, the paper explores some of the psychological factors that impact decision-making, how 'risk' is understood, the role of the media in affecting public perceptions, and other aspects of decision theory relevant to vaccination.

• "A review of vaccine research and development: The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) -- An up-to-date, extensively-referenced review article on the current state of HIV vaccine research, future directions, and scientific challenges that need to be overcome. Heavy on science, but an invaluable starting point for anyone seeking to learn more about the field.