its_the_perfect_name

Only an agenda to push.

Hi there, thanks for taking the time to do this AMA and for all your thorough answers. What sort of ethical considerations/limitations do you take into account when developing a new vaccine?

One more question, and I'm sure you'll get asked about this more than a few times since it's a hot button issue on reddit, but what can be done about the resurgence of diseases in the wake of the claims of people like Edward Hooper or Jenny McCarthy? Obviously we need to simply keep educating people and continuing to push forward with vaccination programs, but is there anything else that you think we should be doing?

Not really. Both are beholden to money but there ARE demonstrable differences in the way they vote, and there are certainly huge differences in ideology.

You don't see any congressional Democrats trying to shoehorn in legislation to restrict abortion rights or kill the ACA. You don't see Democrats fighting against gay marriage or Net Neutrality. You don't see Democrats trying to obstruct the very functioning of the government. That's all the Republicans and the Tea Partiers who the Republicans have enabled, partially due to the ever-more vitriolic and crazy rhetoric their party has been spewing over the past 20 years.

They are NOT the same. Neither is necessarily good, but they certainly aren't equal.

EDIT on your edit:

You're not entirely wrong there. That's part of why Sanders is gaining so much traction.

And which party has systematically been the most ardent defender of the Citizen's United decision?

EDIT: Also, can I borrow your crystal ball later? I have some stuff I'd like predicted too.

Thanks for your answer. It seems that effective science communication is really vital skill, yet remains one that's sorely undervalued by far too many scientists. Vaccine researchers, climate scientists, evolutionary biologists, (list continues forever!) would all benefit significantly, and so would society, from more effectively being able to communicate the importance of their work the general public.

I think what's really lacking isn't the 'science' part of the communication, rather it's the ability to frame the information in an emotional context that deniers and naysayers find palatable.