This collaboration examines mandatory vaccination policies and potential vaccine harms, concluding mandates are likely unnecessary and vaccines remain important for public health despite some ongoing safety concerns. Longer summary

This adversarial collaboration examines two questions regarding childhood vaccination policies in economically developed nations: whether vaccination should be mandatory, and whether health authorities should normalize parental decisions not to vaccinate. The authors conclude that mandatory vaccination is likely not necessary to achieve public health objectives, and that while vaccines are an important element of disease control, there is not sufficient evidence that they cause significant harm to justify discouraging vaccination as a matter of public policy. They suggest studying alternative approaches to increasing vaccination rates without mandates. Shorter summary

A satirical future op-ed argues that not giving children 'super-enhancement gene therapy' is child abuse, mirroring current pro-vaccination arguments. Longer summary

This satirical post, written as if from the future year 2065, critiques current anti-vaccination arguments by applying them to a hypothetical future technology: super-enhancement designer baby gene therapy. The author, posing as a bioethicist, argues that not giving children this therapy is child abuse and a public health issue. The post mimics common pro-vaccination arguments, citing increased crime rates, car accidents, and disease outbreaks as consequences of not enhancing children. It concludes by calling for severe restrictions on unenhanced children and punishment for parents who refuse the therapy. The satire aims to highlight the absurdity of current anti-vaccination arguments by applying similar logic to a more extreme scenario. Shorter summary