There have been a few suggestions that knowledgeable faculty members might attend the event
to challenge false claims made and debunk the junk science. I don't think that engaging them head on as a group is a useful strategy. This would be the ideal approach if the group being engaged were receptive to an evidence based discussion.
For this approach to work there would need to be enough experts to put themselves forward who are willing to take part in that discussion. Those folks should be ready for the Gish-Gallop of 'evidence' that they will have to deflect, emotional pleas parents who have "damaged" babies, and whole slew of other hostilities. You would have to do this without looking like you've come to hijack or heckle the meeting. It would require careful and delicate planning. I think you would have just as much luck bringing fossils to a revival meeting.
Margo Moore suggested a separate event within a few weeks of this one at which experts could discuss this issue. I would support this approach.
N.
> providing evidence to counter the claims of the anti-vaccine lobby.
> arguments, not outrage.
From: "Anke Kessler" <akessler@sfu.ca>
To: "Sam Black" <samuelb@sfu.ca>
Cc: "Paul W. Percival" <percival@sfu.ca>, "Stacy Pigg" <slpigg@gmail.com>, "JD Fleming" <jfleming@sfu.ca>, "Nienke Van Houten" <nvanhout@sfu.ca>, "John O'Neil" <joneil@sfu.ca>, academic-discussion@sfu.ca, "Justin Ankenmann" <ankenman@sfu.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:50:52 AM
Subject: Re: Questions regarding the Vaccine Resistance Network Event @SFU on March 12
I concur with Sam and Paul that engaging VRM at the event itself is a sensible response to the situation. We can use the fact that the VRM rented space at the SFU campus (rather than at a hotel, say) as an opportunity to expose & debunk the pseudo-scientific arguments they put forward.
My original post was meant to alert the academic community to the event. I was fully aware of the fact that the group was merely renting the space, so my wording of 'hosting the event' was somewhat unfortunate I suppose.
Having said this, however, I am less certain about not putting any value judgement on rentals. After all, SFU is a brand name, and the group very likely chose a university campus for a reason.
Surely, there currently are (implicit) limits to what groups we are renting University-owned space to? Or are our values measured in dollars only…engaging the world means 'anyone is welcome as long as they pay cash'? I would like to know whether someone is responsible for filtering and if not, I believe that at the very least we should have a discussion about where we stand on this issue.
Anke Kessler
Department of Economics
Simon Fraser University
akessler@sfu.ca
+1-778-782-3443
On 2013-03-02, at 8:51 AM, Sam Black <samuelb@sfu.ca> wrote:
> I very much agree with the principle articulated by Paul Percival. (The strategy of managing media publicity is something I know nothing about.)
>
> The anti-vaccine movement has been around for quite a long time to poison the minds of credulous parents. The best way to advertise our ideals as a University to the broader community is for some knowledgeable faculty members to attend the session and debunk the junk science. This would also be a public service -- that might even save some children who would otherwise become very ill.
>
> As Paul also rightly emphasizes combatting error with argument is better than any available alternative mechanism for approving talks held in University-owned space.
>
> Sam Black
> Philosophy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul W. Percival <percival@sfu.ca>
> To: Stacy Pigg <slpigg@gmail.com>
> Cc: JD Fleming <jfleming@sfu.ca>, Nienke Van Houten <nvanhout@sfu.ca>, John O'Neil <joneil@sfu.ca>, academic-discussion@sfu.ca, Anke Kessler <akessler@sfu.ca>, Justin Ankenmann <ankenman@sfu.ca>
> Sent: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 00:14:46 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: Questions regarding the Vaccine Resistance Network Event @SFU on March 12
>
> I sincerely hope that there is no value judgment of venue rental
> requests. Who would you trust as the arbiter of what is acceptable? I
> agree that this group, Vaccine Resistance Movement, is spouting
> dangerous nonsense, but I defend their right to do so. The original
> post by Anke Kessler gives the wrong impression with the phrase "an
> event that our institution is hosting". Space is being rented by SFU,
> nothing more.
>
> Nienke van Houten suggests that the University might make a statement
> disassociating itself from the opinions expressed by this group. In my
> opinion that is not appropriate. Rather, I suggest one or more of the
> following strategies:
> Knowledgeable individuals might attend the event (without paying; the
> ad says that no one will be turned away) to challenge false claims made
> by the speakers;
> Individuals or groups may choose to protest (peacefully) outside the
> venue;
> The Dean of Health Sciences and other expert faculty could offer
> media interviews and write opinion pieces or letters-to-the editor
> providing evidence to counter the claims of the anti-vaccine lobby.
> Surely this is what we should do as academics: provide reasoned
> arguments, not outrage.
>
> There is a danger, however, in making any response, namely that it might
> bring publicity to a group whose message we would rather went unheard.
> So be prepared, but play it gently, I suggest.
>
> Paul Percival
>
>
> On 01/03/2013 4:49 PM, Stacy Pigg wrote:
>> As JD Fleming points out, this does appear to be a situation of the
>> free-market renting of space. This is why I am curious to know whether
>> such venue requests are somehow considered or judged or evaluated
>> (whether SFU ever declines to rent space to groups on the basis of the
>> content of the event).
>>
>> SFU is a "brand" (as we know by the major financial investment in
>> rebranding that has occurred). Is the SFU brand being appropriated here?
>> Is the SFU brand affected by hosting this group?
>>
>> Stacy
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:22 PM, JD Fleming <jfleming@sfu.ca
>> <mailto:jfleming@sfu.ca>> wrote:
>>
>> Glancing over the event website, I do not see any indication (unless
>> I am missing something) that this group has been invited by SFU
>> event planners or is claiming any academic association with SFU. My
>> assumption would be that they are paying for the very fine
>> conference space and services offered at market rates by SFU MECS,
>> just as many other non-academic and non-SFU groups do. However, this
>> case certainly does raise some interesting questions as to whether
>> SFU MECS may associate the university, willy-nilly, with groups that
>> do not pass smell test.
>>
>> JD Fleming
>> English
>>
>
> --
> Dr Paul Percival
> Professor of Chemistry
> Simon Fraser University and TRIUMF
> percival@sfu.ca
> percival@triumf.ca
> http://chemistry.sfu.ca/people/profiles/percival
>
>
> --
> ***********************************
> ***********************************
> Sam Black
> Associate Prof. Philosophy, SFU