>>In her conclusion, “What Vaccination Controversy Can Teach Us about Medicine and Modernity,” Hausman posits that “[e]pistemologically, science does not offer us a lot of help in identifying and explaining the various threads that are woven through vaccination controversy” (p. 220). Instead, Hausman suggests “The answer is science and something else” (p. 219). The something else requires an objective, nuanced understanding of the many belief and cultural systems that contribute to one’s underlying understanding of and approach to illness and health and how to deal with both.<p>I don't think it is that complicated. I don't think "science" is even the answer. The answer, to me, revolves around people and their actions.<p>1) An open and up front admission that medical breakthroughs are not typically as definitive as we want them to be.<p>2) A concerted effort to recognize and validate both the pros and cons of a medical procedure. No medical procedure (even one as simple as taking an OTC painkiller or allergy medication) is risk free. No medical procedure is perfect. If something is being touted as a miracle cure/perfect solution or as demon spit designed to make it easier for the government to control us, more information is clearly needed.<p>3) Research figureheads and teams being willing to say "We don't know" instead of trying for platitudes and reassurances and unsupported suggestions.<p>4) If a recommendation is going to be made, make it just that, a recommendation. Do not try and force that recommendation on people and be willing to have that recommendation challenged.<p>5) Repeat, repeat, repeat. The bread and butter of the scientific method is for ideas to be challenged and verified through repeated quality experimentation and study trying to get the same results. The idea that a single study can prove a concept or process is laughable, and study/experiment authors should by up front on just about everything on their process so that their results can be tested. Be willing to take criticism and never operate under the assumption that your work is the end-all/be-all of a field.