Babies, Injections, Science, & Public Relations

How can you not find this face heart-breaking?

On Monday of this week my 6-month-old daughter had a regular check-up with the pediatrician.  Our doctor listened to her heart and lungs, asked us about her sleeping habits, told us she was old enough to wear sunscreen, and ordered 4 vaccines for our little girl - three shots and one taken orally.  Giving shots to a baby is no fun - our nurse said she feels terrible every time - but my wife and I would much rather that our daughter experience shots than measles or polio.

Those 4 vaccinations bring the total number our baby has received to 13 in six months.  She will get another 3 or 4 in the next 3 months.  That's a lot of shots, all of which are unpleasant experiences for babies, parents, and nurses.  After having experienced holding my precious daughter down while the nurse gives her shots, I understand a little better why some parents and health-care professionals would look to connect those shots with something like autism.  The causes of autism are a scientific mystery and there is no scientific treatment for the disorder.  But what is very real to parents is that children often start to display symptoms of autism about the same time that the memories of all of those injections are fresh in the minds of parents.

Of course there is no medical evidence for any connection between vaccines and autism.  The National Academy of Sciences just became the latest scientific body to certify that vaccines are safe.  But try telling that to the Cunningham family of Coal City, West Virginia.


So why do I bring up vaccines and autism on a physics blog?  Because here as in many other fields of science, the problem is with what feels true to the public, not the science. The data may clearly show that vaccines save lives and have absolutely no link to autism, but as a parent I have this gut reaction that says that anything that hurts my baby must be evil. The James Webb Space Telescope may be a scientific masterpiece that gets canceled because it feels like "government waste".  The only scientific debate about anthropogenic climate change is how much of a change will we make and how fast, but Rick Perry, who may be the next president of the United States, is arguing that it doesn't exist.  These are all examples, in my opinion, of areas where the real problems aren't with the science, but the public relations.

So how do we as scientists fix this?  I'm afraid I don't have many answers.  I think the scientific community needs to work harder to engage the public, but also needs to be better at engaging the public.  I am open to suggestions on how to do that.

Scientists Develop Artificial Blood

This from Science Daily:

Scientists from the University of Sheffield are developing an artificial 'plastic blood´, which could act as a substitute for real blood in emergency situations. The 'plastic blood´ could have a huge impact on military applications.

Because the artificial blood is made from a plastic, it is light to carry and easy to store. Doctors could store the substitute as a thick paste in a blood bag and then dissolve it in water just before giving it to patients – meaning it´s easier to transport than liquid blood.

Donated blood has a relatively short shelf-life of 35 days, after which it must be thrown away. It also needs refrigeration, whereas the 'plastic blood´ will be storable for many more days and is stable at room temperature.

The artificial blood is made of plastic molecules that hold an iron atom at their core, just like hemoglobin, that can bind oxygen and could transport it around the body. The small plastic molecules join together in a tree-like branching structure, with a size and shape very similar to that of natural hemoglobin molecules. This creates the right environment for the iron to bind oxygen in the lungs and release it in the body.