How do scientists respond when someone disputes the findings of vaccine safety studies?

If ‘someone’ disputes the findings of vaccine safety studies, we have two ways to respond.

Firstway:

As a Microbiologist and specialist in the field, I would want to see who that ‘someone’ is and how - the way - he is disputing.

Science encourages a healthy debate. Scientists need to be challenged continuously by different viewpoints so they can integrate them into the development of knowledge and technologies. (1)

Science considers everything brought before it. But to convince science it takes a lot more than mere words and emotional arguments. Just opinions don't count in science. It demands data proof. If you provide one, it gives a lot of ground to your theory and argument. In that way science is not rigid.

However, in recent times, science is being challenged not only by scientists, but also by religious fundamentalists, devout religious followers, industry, people in politics, some educationists, activists and other vested interests who don't have any knowledge regarding science and by using dubious methods. This, I think, is a dangerous trend.

Anybody can challenge the big 'S' but using only scientific methods. When asked to do this people are cooking up data, making strange claims and propagating pseudo-science. Even people of science are falling prey to these pseudo-scientific methods. (1)

The problem is not that science is being challenged, it is what it is being challenged with. And of course how it is challenged. If logical questions are being posed, it is appropriate. If the challenge comes from restating ancient faith-based fables it is not appropriate, both from a scientific and separation-of-religion-and-state perspective. Controversy and the various arguments for and against should be debated in a healthy atmosphere. To push religious, commercial and political agendas in order to dumb down people who might otherwise benefit from proper science training is deplorable and should be condemned as this makes people hopelessly out of touch with reality. This kind of backward progress is what brought about the crusades and the dark ages that followed. It might help those who want to exploit the public with their agendas. (1)

Science being challenged by scientists is the essence of science. Science being challenged by public school teachers with an agenda, by people with biased views, by people who follow religion fearing that science might dislodge age old dogmas, by industrialists who fear that they might not be able to proceed with their polluting ways, by politicians who play vote bank politics to win elections is the essence of stupidity.

If the challenge only permits to help people understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught and to encourage them to respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues which include evolution, global warming, etc., so as to develop critical thinking skills, science embraces such a healthy debate.

The heart of science is skepticism. No, of course you should not accept any part of science on faith! On the other hand, it takes a great deal of work to convince yourself that some "law" of science is true or not if you are a layman, so in the meantime, accepting the facts given by the "experts" is a reasonable fall-back. The trick, of course, is to pick the right experts.

While doing this, when faced with facts they dislike, some human beings insist on killing the messenger and denouncing his message out of hand. This hatred towards science is not a healthy trend.

Science should be challenged only by scientific means and in a scientific way. If everybody tries to propagate his or her theory by challenging science, there will be utter chaos like we are now seeing in the Western countries and to some extent in this part of the world too. A line should be drawn and if anybody crosses that line, they need to be put back in place or chaos will prevail and future generations will turn into morons and idiots without proper scientific knowledge. (1)

Right, if a scientist challenges the vaccine safety studies using a scientific method and valid genuine data to support his/her argument and proves me wrong, I will bow my head in acceptance and try to correct myself and my science.

Second way: 

If a layman challenges me using his beliefs and gobbledygook without any evidence or pseudo-evidence, I can sense that in an instant and hit the ignore button, when it is done privately.
.

However, on social media, the danger of trolls and irresponsible arguments being able to alter public perception of all sciences is a real threat and I must counter any negativity regarding my science. Posts, blogs and negative comments, regardless of their merit, could sway readers’ perceptions (2,3).

So, I will not only provide evidence to show that the person is wrong but also try to do it in the right way. Because just providing data doesn’t convince laymen. I have a few tricks to counter the anti-vaxxers

A common quandary for much science communication may in fact be that it appeals to those already engaged with science. Or love or like science. But the new science of communication suggests it is certainly worth trying to reach out to those who are disengaged.

According to some experts... these things might work ... 1. keep emotions out of the exchange, 2. discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad Hitlerum), 3. listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately, 4. show respect, 5. acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion, and 6. try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.

It is an experts' obligation to defend their science, to set the record straight, and to help ensure people are not misled by poor evidence and corrupt reasoning. This is best done by engaging directly with dubious people and their biased arguments. (4)

Need I say that I will do everything possible to counter misinformation in my field?

Image credit: evidence.nihr.ac.uk

Footnotes:

1. Can you challenge science?

(This is my own article)

2. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/trolls-are-ruining-scienc...

3. Trolls win: Rude comments dim the allure of science online

4. Why it is difficult for scientists to debate controversial issues w... (my own article)