Amid rising political polarization and the pervasive spread of misinformation, communicating effectively about vaccines has never been more critical—or more challenging. Jeffrey Morris, PhD, the George S. Pepper Professor of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and Director of the Division of Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, has been at the forefront of this effort. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, he has leveraged his expertise to share evidence-based insights through social media platforms and peer-reviewed publications.
In a recent interview with Undark, Dr. Morris highlighted the importance of addressing vaccine skepticism through respectful, evidence-driven dialogue. He emphasized that data alone is insufficient; successful public health communication also requires a deep understanding of the political and social dynamics that shape public perceptions.
The Role of Respect and Transparency in Scientific Communication
During the pandemic, Dr. Morris noted how social media and artificial intelligence algorithms contributed to the creation of polarized echo chambers, where individuals from one group often viewed those from opposing groups with suspicion or hostility.
“People’s political views have a major impact on what information is presented to them and how they frame that information,” states Dr. Morris, “Because of this, when it comes to scientific communication of public health messages, politics must be taken into account.”
Advocating for a respectful and non-partisan approach to addressing vaccine concerns, he urges scientists to be mindful of their own political beliefs and biases when interpreting emerging data, and to avoid overtly partisan commentary, adding, “Especially in matters of public health, it’s crucial to effectively engage the entire society, as we can’t afford to alienate half the population by being perceived as partisan.”
Dr. Morris also acknowledged the importance of accounting for the political diversity of our society and avoiding the silencing of questions or concerns from those with differing political perspectives. According to Dr. Morris this involves demonstrating respect, embracing transparency, and acknowledging uncertainty.
“I think we would be in a stronger position regarding public trust if policy makers, the media, and the scientific community had done a better job of listening to those questions, responding objectively with evidence-based answers, openly acknowledging the uncertainties in our knowledge, and the potential limitations of the policies, and most importantly, showing respect for those asking the questions.”
Understanding Vaccine Skepticism
The interview touched on a recent and documented decline in public trust toward vaccines, particularly since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for more effective communications about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. According to Dr. Morris the intensified skepticism surrounding vaccines was driven by several pandemic-related factors, such the rapid development and deployment of vaccines and the rise of misinformation online, but he believes that mandates contributed strongly to vaccine backlash.
“The sense of being coerced into taking the vaccines heightened fear and anxiety,” Morris explains, adding that this environment enabled vaccine misinformation to flourish online and “heightened the visibility and influence of vaccine skeptics.”
Collaborating to Improve Public Understanding
Dr. Morris is working with the Annenberg Public Policy Center to develop materials to educate the public about vaccine safety monitoring systems, such as passive reporting systems like VAERS, and active reporting systems reviewing electronic health records and insurance claims data.
“There’s been a great deal of misunderstanding of these systems and their nuances, much of it related to statistical aspects of how to properly interpret the data from the various systems,” states Dr. Morris.
Together, the team is also studying the effectiveness of science communications related to Covid-19 and other public health topics using randomized designs within the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge (ASPAPH) survey. Leveraging a diverse cohort of individuals from across the political spectrum, this study assesses understanding and beliefs, and then utilizes randomization to evaluate the effectiveness of specific scientific communication strategies with the aim of improving public trust.
Looking Ahead
Underscoring the need for rigorous research and data-driven decisions to protect public health, Dr. Morris envisions a future where scientific discourse is rooted in mutual respect and curiosity.
“I think if you have people that are both well-intentioned making good faith arguments about what they really believe, and they respect each other, and they’re curious to understand the other perspective, I think it’s possible for any two people to talk about any issue, no matter how controversial,” states Dr. Morris.
“If we talk that way to each other — if we dealt that way with the uncertainty of accruing scientific knowledge — I think we would all discover the truth together, and we would be unified in it. But that process and discourse, especially in modern society, is more and more rare to see.”