Stephen John (University of Cambridge)
This paper sets out six possible reasons in favour of "anti-vaccination" attitudes. The first and second are grounded in the is/ought distinction. The other four focus on epistemic issues: problems with inferring from "population-level" to "individual-level" knowledge; the epistemology of well-placed trust; the difference between causal knowledge and knowledge about effective interventions; and inductive risk concerns. I suggest that, given these arguments, "dissent" from the scientific orthodoxy on vaccination is not inherently irrational. However, I also argue that, regardless of these epistemic issues, citizens may have political obligations to defer to scientists' claims about safety and efficacy.
