Science Studies at the Washington Post
Posted February 13, 2009, 08:02 ET
I am at a disadvantage with other bloggers because I don’t take that rich source of nuttiness, the New York Times. However, the Washington Post occasionally rewards its readers with an unconsciously ridiculous story.
Today it was a WaPo page one account of a battle over vaccines and autism, and the connection or absence thereof between them. On the one side, a consensus of the medical establishment, nearly 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies, the AMA, and a federal judge. On the other side, angry parents, their trial lawyers, Robert F. Kennedy and Rolling Stone magazine.
Two sides. Who can say who is right? Not the Post. “it remains to be seen whether yesterday’s ruling will end the controversy–or be seen as just more evidence of what some call a conspiracy.”
If there really are two sides to every science story, should creationists be cut some slack?
I recognize, of course, that newspapers writers are not supposed to editorialize. But in describing conspiracy theories as a matter of serious debate, a story may legitimize the illegitimate. We should care what Robert F. Kennedy thinks?
_2005-11-10.JPG){kind=link}
