Vaccine policy-making meetings, advisory committees, and legislative hearings at the local, state, and national levels have become increasingly uncivil. Many who object to vaccines have resorted to shouting, threats, and other disruptive behaviors.1 These behaviors erode the premise of civil society and undermine the goals of most vaccine-hesitant persons, who are thoughtful and law abiding. Civil skepticism in public discussions about vaccine policy can lead to productive discussion. The science of vaccinology, like all science, has uncertainties; applying science in policy entails value judgments, and people can disagree on the implications of scientific evidence. Skepticism reminds all individuals that intellectual humility is important and reinforces the value of democratic debate and transparent procedure.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Poland GA, Tilburt JC, Marcuse EK. Preserving Civility in Vaccine Policy Discourse: A Way Forward. JAMA. 2019;322(3):209–210. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.7445
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: