Dr. Noni MacDonald and public health reporter André Picard, point out in a CMAJ editorial that in order to avoid misinterpretation, academic terminologies in scientific studies must be substituted with clear comprehensible conclusions.
As a result of the broadening of the audience in the Web and search engines for scientific studies, which now include not only academics, but also media, politicians, the general public and special interest groups, the language of academia can lead non academic readers to draw inaccurate conclusions.
“The cautious, exact scientific language of academic articles is largely alien to many members of these groups and can obscure the meaning of the scientific findings and fuel misinformation,” write Dr. Noni MacDonald and André Picard.
Research on vaccine safety offers some examples of the pitfalls of misinterpretations. As an example, they refer to an adverse reaction following vaccination, and whether it is linked to the vaccine. To non academics, the word “unlikely” can imply causality, while in the scientific language, this term is used when there is no evidence that the vaccine caused a reaction.
“Such serious misunderstandings, whether by health care workers, community members, politicians or journalists, can lead to a widespread community belief that the vaccine in question is unsafe,” the authors explain. “Instead of calming fears, the misinterpreted conclusion may add to anxiety.” This can result in the halting of a vaccine campaign provoking a rise in disease, disabilities or deaths that could have been prevented by vaccination.
“A plea for clear language on vaccine safety”
Noni MacDonald and André Picard
CMAJ • March 31, 2009; 180 (7). doi:10.1503/cmaj.090363
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/180/7/697
Written by Stephanie Brunner (B.A.)