Consider the following scenario:
Dylan Dawson is a master’s student from a prestigious school majoring in industrial engineering. Besides academic responsibilities, he’s also involved in several extracurricular activities. His recent project is organizing a TEDx event on campus. Dylan Dawson is dealing with too many obligations right now, so he goes to his doctor and asks for a prescription of Vyvanse, a stimulant in the amphetamine class prescribed to treat mostly attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Dylan receives a temporary prescription for Vyvanse, so he can stay focused and motivated while juggling with classes, course work, working out, and organizing the TEDx event.
Dylan isn’t diagnosed with any pathological disease that would require him to take Vyvanse. The purpose of him taking this prescription drug is to ace all his exams, stick to his workout routine, and organize a successful TEDx event.
There is even a term describing Dylan’s situation: cosmetic psychopharmacology, coined by Peter Kramer, a psychiatrist and faculty member at Brown Medical School. Kramer defines cosmetic pharmacology as “using medications to induce desirable and socially rewarding personality traits in healthy individuals.” In case of Dylan Dawson, he used Vyvanse to enhance his cognitive performance to power through a challenging time even though he was perfectly healthy.Continue reading…
We at UYBFS like a good joke. In that spirit, we posted a cartoon poking fun at Jenny McCarthy, D-list actress and notable anti-vaccine advocate, to a Facebook page called Science Humor. It’s a funny page, if you’re in to science puns and jokes you need an advanced degree to understand, which we totally are.
People liked the cartoon, but we were very surprised by a vocal minority of people who responded to the post with very vehement anti-vaccine views. Our surprise stems from the fact that the name of the page is “Science Humor”, which we assumed would narrow down the active readers to people with a strong background in science, of which we know exactly zero who oppose the use of vaccines or believe (as Jenny McCarthy does) that vaccines cause autism.
Our assumptions were wrong. Some of the anti-vaccine supporters clearly had some background in science. They posted articles supporting their views and seemed to be looking for debate. Meanwhile, some of those who took the pro-vaccine side just resorted to name calling rather than engage in scientific debate. (In all fairness, there was name calling on both sides).
We stayed out of the debate. In part, we wanted to see where the discussion went, but mainly, we are of the mind that the comments section in a Facebook post is not a good place hold detailed scientific discussions. However, we need to acknowledge that there are people out there with very strong anti-vaccine views . Making fun of them or dismissing them as “nuts” is not productive. Our goal should be to educate, to bring them along and lay out the facts. We won’t convince those who are not open to impartially weighing the scientific evidence, but if we do our job right, we may just change a few minds for the better.
But how? Some of these people were VERY passionate about their anti-vaccine posts – can we actually change their minds? Should we go point-by-point, refuting each reference they posted? This last approach would be the most thorough, but it would also be BORING, and we actually want people to read this blog. So instead, we will focus on the major pillars of “evidence” used to support anti-vaccine views. For those aligned with science, think of this as a guide for speaking to others with opposing views. For those who hold anti-vaccine views, we hope this may bring some clarity to the science behind vaccine safety. There is a lot to unpack here, so this we’ll break our discussion into 3 parts. When possible, we’ll use some examples from the Facebook page thread, with all names redacted.
