Harms of Hedging in Scientific Discourse: Andrew Wakefield and the Origins of the Autism Vaccine Controversy

Abstract

This study reveals the discursive origins of the Autism MMR vaccine controversy through a rhetorical examination of the 1998 Wakefield et al. article. I argue the very practices of scientific publishing, specifically the tradition of hedging, help to create a scientifically acceptable text but also leave discursive gaps. These gaps allow for alternate interpretations as scientific texts pass from technical to public contexts, enabling insufficiently supported claims the standing of scientific knowledge among citizens.

Keywords:

• hedging
• manufactured controversy
• peer review
• reception study
• scientific discourse

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks Leah Ceccarelli for her helpful comments and ongoing feedback on this piece and especially for pointing out how Wakefield's “beyond doubt” hedge during his press conference comments worked to increase the supposed strength of the findings reported in the Lancet article. The author would also like to thank the two anonymous TCQ reviewers for their invaluable feedback, which helped strengthen the clarity of some of the arguments presented here.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Lauren R. Kolodziejski

Lauren R. Kolodziejski is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. Her research focuses on science-based and manufactured controversies as well as the rhetorical dynamics of expertise.