Week 5: Group assignment time!

View image | gettyimages.com

Assignment 1 is now complete, and it's time for assignment 2, the group report.

As mentioned previously, last year I completed a Diploma in Software Development. One of the final assignments for this was a writing a report as a group project, so fortunately I am somewhat prepared for what comes next.

The "diploma" report was longer than the one we will be doing (it was more of a business solution proposal really), but the work was spread over a much larger team.

I expect assignment 2, with a group of only 4 or 5 people, will have a more intense workload for all involved -- nowhere for a slack team-member to hide! Secondly it should be easier for the team leader to coordinate the work. In the larger team of 12 people it was necessary to split off into smaller groups that were self-governed while completing their assigned task.

Fortunately our team was sorted out quite early on. They've been a supportive and communicative bunch during the "assignment 1" weeks, and I have every expectation that we'll do a great job on assignment 2.

Week 4: Balance

View image | gettyimages.com

When reporting on science, the fair and balanced thing to do is to give both sides of the argument an equal opportunity to put forward their point of view, right?

Not always. Take, for example, the 97% of scientists who agree that climate change is both real, and caused by humans (Bray, 2010). Given this overwhelming scientific consensus it would be a strange kind of "balance" to give the views of the 3% who disagree equal weight. Unfortunately this does happen far more often than it should.

There is a tendency to apply this brand of balance to other issues of broad scientific agreement, such as immunisation. Petousis-Harris, Goodyear-Smith, Kameshwar & Turner (2010) suggests that this tactic is used by journalists to excuse them from the more difficult task of evaluating whether the viewpoints presented are based on fact or fallacy. The unfortunate side effect, however, is that dubious viewpoints presented as "balancing" arguments are thus granted undue credibility.

So remember, next time you're reading about science in the media, firstly to apply your critical faculties to all viewpoints, but to be especially wary of the fringe viewpoints provided for the sake of "balance". Equal airtime does not mean equal credibility!

References

Bray, D. (2010). The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(5), 340–350.

Petousis-Harris, H. A., Goodyear-Smith, F. A., Kameshwar, K & Turner, N. (2010). Fact or fallacy: Immunisation arguments in the New Zealand print media. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 34(5), 521–526.

Week 3: Summarising the debate

#151327601 / gettyimages.com

For the "opposing arguments" in my position paper, I had to get a bit creative finding sources to cite which were actually against vaccination. In the end I relied on the web manifestos of one anti-vaccine group, and one "pro vaccine-choice" group. I hesitate to name them here, as no doubt they have Google alerts set up to detect and counter anyone who mentions them. I'm not interested in entering into that particular debate here.

My research also turned up a submission to the Health Select Committee inquiry into how to improve completion rates of childhood immunisation. I was fortunate to have come across this as a formal and articulate outline of the concerns of anti-vaccination groups in New Zealand, as early in the research process I doubted whether I would come across anything of this sort.

One of the key arguments in this submission was there has been a decline in death rates from infectious diseases that pre-dates the introduction of vaccination programs (Claridge, 2010). Therefore, it's reasoned, vaccinations were not responsible for the declines, rather it is other factors such as improved sanitation and hand washing. Graph upon graph then compared the decline in infection rates with the introduction date of the applicable vaccine.

This is typical of the arguments of anti-vaccination groups. When they aren't advocating that vaccines are outright dangerous, they suggest that the risks posed by vaccine, whether small or not, simply aren't worthwhile because vaccines just don't work in any case.

The Ministry of Health has an active role in directly combating false information about vaccination. The Immunisation Handbook 2014, is a great resource enumerating and refuting false beliefs about immunisation. Once the key points have been identified, it is easier to locate the appropriate primary literature to back up the facts.

For example, I found that improvements in sanitation do indeed help to control infection rates, However, outbreaks of diseases such as measles still occur (Ministry of Health, 2014). In fact, as these factors make it likely that you may dodge infection through childhood, this may make vaccination more important. This is because the symptoms of many infectious diseases are much worse for adults. Such is the case with Hepatitis A, which although harmless to children, increases in seriousness along with the age of the patient, the the potential to cause serious illness or death (Willner, Howard & Riely, 1998).

 Claridge, S. (2010). Submission on the Inquiry into how to improve completion rates of childhood immunisation [Submission to the Health Select Committee]. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/documents/evidence/49SCHE_EVI_00DBSCH_INQ_9658_1_A36922/sue-claridge

 Ministry of Health. (2014). Immunisation Handbook 2014. Wellington: Ministry of Health.

 Willner, I. R., Howard, S.C., & Riely, C. A. (1998). Serious Hepatitis A: An Analysis of Patients Hospitalized during an Urban Epidemic in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128(2), 111–117.

Week 2: The Literature

#81711623 / gettyimages.com

Research. Not as easy as it looks on TV.

One problem that I soon ran into seemed to be to do with my choice of topic. "Action must be taken to improve New Zealand’s immunisation rates" is a fairly uncontroversial statement in the scientific community. The scientific discourse instead focusses on the reasons why vaccine uptake may be delayed, or what the drivers are which may discourage parents from immunising their children.

This is a bit of a problem as my position paper needs to present the opposing viewpoints.  While these aren't hard to come by, they are usually poorly researched or illogical... not primary literature sources. After seeking clarification from the course coordinators, I have been informed that as some of these arguments are widespread and persistent, it is appropriate to use them in my position paper as opposing viewpoints.

Other than that, my research has been about as exciting as can be expected. Most of my reading has taken 3 forms: Background reading (books), Ministry of health for stats and information on the Vaccine schedule, and using Discover and Google Scholar to search for relevant primary literature (journal articles). The Immunisation Advisory Centre website also has a page listing relevant primary literature, and I've found many interesting articles here.

One disappointment I've had was coming across an article which sounds like a perfect resource for this assignment: The challenge of improving immunization coverage: the New Zealand example by Nikki Turner. Look at that title! It's as if this article was commissioned just for me! but unfortunately it is not available through the Massey library. In fact the Expert Review of Vaccines wants US$89 for 24 hours of access to the article, so it looks like that won't be happening.

I have a fairly decent stack of resources ready now, and I am soon to move on to writing my first draft. I'm sure I'm not done yet though. The research will have to continue to some extent, I'm afraid, as I write.

Speaking of writing, this position paper isn't going to write itself. So goodbye until next week!

Week 1 — Introduction

#90738853 / gettyimages.com

Hello, World. My name is Ian Witham, your host for this Communication in the Sciences mandated blog.

This year I completed a Diploma in Software Development. My final year of the diploma was a challenging one for myself and my family. Before a late rally, my motivation had sunk to an all time low. Unexpectedly, I graduated with a good grade. Excellent, in fact. After a few weeks of reflecting on this embarrassing turn of events, and concluding that just maybe I'm capable of being studious after all, I enrolled in a Bachelor of Science degree at Massey University.

I've come to Massey primarily to study computer science, and this is what I intend to major in. I have loved using computers since I was first introduced to the famous ZX Spectrum computer in the early 1980s. Even then I was fascinated by programming (I could draw coloured circles and make make the computer go "beep" like a pro).

I expect to get a lot from Communication in the Sciences. Good writing is essential for computer programmers. Of course it is necessary to effectively document and communicate our ideas in prose, but also in the programs we write. This is encapsulated well by one of my favourite quotes on the subject:

Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute

— Abelson & Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

I have a few ideas on what makes for good writing. Short sentences. Plain style. Putting the interesting words to begin and end each sentence. Clearly my writing has a some distance to make up yet.

I am also hopeful that this paper will lead me into a regular writing habit; To writing little every day (or most days, failing that). I would love to continue blogging once this paper is completed.

Finally, to my comrades studying alongside me this summer, good luck!