Science Forward

Earlier this year, Leonardo DiCaprio addressed the United Nations Climate Summit as the UN Messenger of Peace. The actor, known for his dedication to preservation of the environment, was well received by summit attendees. But honestly, I had to ask why, of all people to speak at a global summit regarding the climate, they chose a man known for his body of work published in Hollywood, not PLOS One.

Celebrity advocacy and endorsement is definitely not a new strategy, and it’s a great way to get the message out about a cause. Celebrities can reach a wider audience, and for some inexplicable reason – their fame, or the fact that generally celebrities are attractive, perhaps – people listen to them and legitimately care about their opinions. They can do incredible good with their fame. But on the flip side of this, we have an issue that I like to call Modern McCarthyism.

Jenny McCarthy, Playboy Playmate, film and television star, and former co-host of talk-show The View, is arguably now more famous for her opinion on vaccines than her actual career. Although she claims she is not anti-vaccine, since 2009 she has gone on the record multiple times asserting that vaccines caused her son’s autism.

Many of us scoffed at it initially, shaking our heads. Once again, a celebrity was promoting something completely ridiculous. No one could possibly believe this, we thought. Medical experts agree that vaccines are safe, and the large body of scientific evidence available is highly in their favour. And yet measles, a disease that had been eradicated in the United States in 2000, broke out across the nation in 2010. Pertussis, commonly known as whooping cough, killed ten in California just that year. The main victims of these diseases were infants and children. And the cause of these outbreaks? Parents who opted out of vaccinating their children and sent them off to school.

In California, like in many other areas of the United States, vaccinations are a requirement to attend school, but parents can opt-out of vaccinations for religious or medical reasons. Unfortunately, in practice, this operates as a catchall for any concern or excuse a parent might have against vaccines, however unfounded they may be. Like McCarthy said in an interview with Time in April 2009, they decided that if it came down to measles or autism, they’d “stand in line for the f­––king measles.”

And, to be sure, they got their wish. Measles made a return and has remained an issue since 2010, because parents are terrified by the threat of an autism diagnosis. It’s understandable. No parent would ever wish that on his or her child. However, autism is currently one of the most misdiagnosed conditions in children, in part because it’s not as well understood as other conditions, but also because the definition is so broad.

In modern McCarthyism, autism is the threat, and the list of names is vaccines. Parents blindly trust herd immunity – the idea that if enough individuals in a population become immune or resistant to a disease, those who are not immune will not get infected due to reduced spreading of it – to keep their children safe. The issue here is with how herd immunity works. If enough individuals decide to not immunise, the system fails, the disease spreads, and infants too young to get the vaccines and children who have weaker immune systems than adults suffer for it.

It’s a struggle for scientists to combat the scientific untruths propagated by celebrities, especially in this age of instant communication. Even if they have all the facts, scientists just can’t reach the same audience that a celebrity can, and that may be a fault with the American media. Unless it’s about hover-boards or a cool “sciency” viral video, it’s not going to sell. People don’t generally read scientific papers because the language is dense and the subject isn’t immediately interesting, but people like entertainment, attractive people, and human drama – everything a celebrity provides. The more people see a person or hear a name, the more likely they are to pay attention to them in the future. Incumbent politicians win elections not necessarily over political beliefs, but name recognition. I know who you are; therefore I will hear what you have to say.

This phenomenon is immediately visible in every climate change “debate” on every news channel. Invariably, who is their scientific expert? Bill Nye, the Science Guy. And why do they have him? Not because he is an expert in environmental studies, but because he is a celebrity associated with science. People listen to him because he’s recognisable and he’s the Science Guy. He knows science.

I am not attempting to disparage Mr. Nye here. He does, in fact, have a degree in a scientific field ­– a B.S. from Cornell in mechanical engineering. He’s worked for NASA, he lectures at Cornell, and he has extensive experience in teaching scientific concepts to the general public. What I am saying is that there are definitely more qualified people, such as environmental scientists who have worked on climate models and have a degree in this field, that would be just as qualified, if not more so, to speak about climate change on the news.

Americans have more respect for celebrities than scientists. We’re more inclined to believe a doctor in a commercial if they wear scrubs and a lab coat à la daytime television. The mere fact that the phrase “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV” has become so instantly recognisable is telling. We might like House (or Doogie Howser, if we’re going old-school), but we’d be crazy to consult Hugh Laurie or Neil Patrick Harris for medical advice. And while it might be cool to have Bryan Cranston as my chemistry teacher, the novelty would wear off as soon as midterms rolled around.

But expertise doesn’t sell. Celebrity does. And while science is for everyone, a mistake made publicly by a celebrity is difficult to rectify. We’re still having issues with parents and vaccinations. So long as we prefer to hear what the famous person says instead of the expert, we must be willing to face the threat that celebrities will say something wrong – and people will believe them.