Credibility battles in the autism litigation

Area of Science:

• Medical science
• Public health
• Sociology of science

Background:

• Widely accepted scientific consensus refutes a link between vaccines and autism.
• Legal challenges, including an 8-year US federal vaccine court case, have addressed claims of vaccine-induced autism.
• Two primary vaccine controversies involved were the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and the preservative thimerosal.

Purpose of the Study:

• To examine credibility battles and boundary work in vaccine-autism court cases.
• To illuminate the alternative science supporting anti-vaccine advocates.
• To analyze how legal processes in scientific controversies can be perceived as injustice.

Main Methods:

• Qualitative analysis of court proceedings and advocacy efforts.
• Examination of "alternative science" and its proponents.
• Analysis of how legal legitimacy is constructed and contested.

Main Results:

• The study identifies a network of parents, lawyers, researchers, and experts supporting anti-vaccine claims.
• Court rulings against vaccine-autism links were reframed by advocates as evidence of procedural injustice.
• Legal resolutions did not alter the beliefs of those involved in the controversy.

Conclusions:

• Settling scientific controversies in court does not guarantee acceptance of the rulings.
• Efforts to establish legitimacy in legal disputes can be reinterpreted as evidence of unfairness.
• The persistence of alternative science highlights challenges in resolving public health controversies.