The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

My Nominee for Most Irksome Pander: Vaccines and Autism

Ann, your smart post tees me up to protest one particular pander: the candidates' unwillingess to speak the scientific truth that there is no evidence of a link between mercury in vaccines and autism. McCain is the worst on this. From the Washington Post, quoting McCain at a February town hall meeting: "It's indisputable that (autism) is on the rise among children, the question is what's causing it. And we go back and forth and there's strong evidence that indicates it's got to do with a preservative in vaccines."

Obama isn't much better. His quote from a Pennsylvania rally this week, also in the Post: "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." The Post has video showing that Obama pointed to someone in the crowd when he said "this person included," so he wasn't talking about himself. Still, there is nothing inconclusive about the science on the autism-vaccines link.

Hillary doesn't slam the door shut on the myth-makers, either. Asked what she would do to protect against "exposure to mercury through vaccines," she said, "I will ensure that all vaccines are as safe as possible for our children by working to ensure that Thimerosal and mercury are removed from vaccines." This is nonsensical, since the government took thimerosal out of vaccines in 1999 (because of other concerns about mercury, though not the kind of mercury in thimerosal, and not related to autism).

As Slate's health editor, I've run so many pieces that patiently debunk the claim that vaccines cause autism that the last time the controversy cropped up, I couldn't bear to assign a new one. Here's how the CDC puts it, "there's no convincing scientific evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines." Here's the latest study knocking down this ever-persistent claim. Here's a good explanation about why the myth won't die. Why, then, are the candidates blithely skipping down this pander path? I haven't heard back from the McCain camp. When I asked the Obama campaign, I got no direct answer but rather a pointed mention of the many many e-mails that parents devoted to this myth send. Which of course is the answer: On one side of this dispute is an extremely impassioned and devoted band of adherents who are deserving of sympathy: parents of autistic children. On the other side is scientific truth—cold, abstract, and apparently not a vote getter. But as our colleague Will Saletan points out, how can Democrats complain about the fake denials of global warming and evolution while practicing the exact same pandering over autism? Gross.