Good Science or Good Science Writing?

When you connect Autism and Vaccine's, you can definitely say that they are scientifically incorrect. If studies show more harm than aid with vaccines, then the red flag must be raised. As some would say they are scientifically wrong, but more specifically they are scientifically illiterate. I could not disagree more.

Although you can not argue with the evidence, I believe you need to give credit where credit is due. When you think of what you hear about in scientific news, you only hear about breakthrough successes or detrimental failures. I do not consider the vaccine-autism connection to be a failure. In return, I do not consider these advocates to be scientifically illiterate.

It is made very clear that these advocates are doing extensive research and have some sort of credibility here. The results do not follow, but the research continues. As of right now there are no links between the two and evidence shows harm over aid. This does not mean that we won't be reading about a breakthrough in the future. We could very well be hearing about a breakthrough study connecting the two. 

More importantly, I believe it is ignorant to label them as ignorant. These scientists or advocates are doing what they can to settle a problem/disease that we are all looking for answers to. Some may say it is a waste of time, but I believe this is no different than any other scientific study. We can not consider them scientifically illiterate if they are extensively searching for something we so desire.

When i think back to learning as a scientific writer, I think about giving the audience what they want to hear. As I stated before, we all seem to be a little confused and desperate for answers to autism. These scientists are only trying to gives us what we want. An ignorant scientific reader, as many can be labeled as, will be very satisfied with the word of vaccine-autism advocates. Although it may not be scientifically correct, it is worthy of scientific writing. It is accessible and newsworthy. This is a conflict between what people want to hear and what remains proven in science.