TIME Infectious Disease

White House Urges Measles Vaccinations As Number of Infected Passes 100

Outbreak has now spread to 14 states

The White House said on Friday that parents should be “listening to our public health officials,” who urge vaccinations against measles, as it emerged the disease has now infected more than 100 people in the U.S.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that President Obama thinks parents should ultimately make their own decision whether or not to vaccinate their children, Reuters reports, but added that the science clearly points to vaccinating.

“People should evaluate this for themselves with a bias toward good science and toward the advice of our public health professionals,” said Earnest.

According to new numbers from the California Department of Public Health, 91 of the confirmed cases are in California, ground zero for the recent U.S. measles outbreak that began in December.

58 of those cases are believed to be linked to the December Disneyland outbreak, where it likely arrived from overseas. Measles has quickly spread to 13 other states—Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington state—and Mexico.

Measles was wiped from the U.S. in 2000, but CDC health officials say it’s back because some people aren’t getting vaccinated. The New York Times published interviews Saturday with several parents who oppose vaccination for their children; one woman, Kelly McMenimen, told the newspaper that she “meditated on it a lot” about the vaccine but decided she didn’t want “so many toxins” entering her 8-year-old son.

The majority of new measles cases are in people who aren’t vaccinated, and California is especially vulnerable. Once a baseline vaccination rate dips below 95%, a community becomes less protected against the disease—and California is now at 92%.

[Reuters]

TIME Exercise/Fitness

7 Reasons Why You’re Working Out and Still Not Losing Weight

striped-socks-standing-scale
Getty Images

Diet and exercise don't tell the whole story

Do you eat well, exercise often, and still feel like you’re not losing that stubborn weight? Truth is, eating well and exercising often is a very relative and general statement. If we’re honest with ourselves, I’m sure we could admit that we’re all capable of trying a little harder in both areas.

Total-body wellness is a lifestyle. Fat loss happens when you ditch the scale, find an activity you enjoy, and start to see food as fuel instead of something to feed your emotions or occupy your time.

No matter who you are or what your background is, chances are one of these 7 reasons could be why you’re not shedding pounds.

HEALTH.COM: 11 Reasons Why You’re Not Losing Belly Fat

You’re eating wrong foods

If you’re not losing weight, the first place you should be looking is the kitchen. Some people focus all their energy on burning off calories that they don’t take the time to consider what they’re putting in as fuel. Diet is at least 80% of the battle. While the exact foods you should be eating depend heavily on your body type, metabolism, and other factors, a good rule of thumb is to stick to all natural, whole foods.

Eat most of your starchy carbohydrates (like potatoes, brown rice, grains) on days when you do strength training or more rigorous exercise. On your rest days or when you’re doing light cardio, try to stick to just protein and veggies and not a lot of those starchy foods. Avoid excess bread, sugar, and anything else that’s processed. Look for foods that have the fewest ingredients on the label—if you can’t pronounce it, it’s probably not something you want to be putting in your body.

You’re eating too much

If you’ve already cleaned up your diet big time and you’re still not losing weight, it may be that you’re simply eating too much. In order to shed pounds your body needs to run a calorie deficit, meaning you need to burn more than you consume. That being said, you shouldn’t have to deprive yourself either. Life is about balance. Don’t become consumed with counting calories or weighing yourself every day.

Eat whenever you’re hungry and eat slowly enough so you can stop just before you get full. Healthy snacking during the day will keep you from overeating during meals. I always carry a few Kind Bars in my bag, because they’re a great snack made with whole foods, and have nothing artificial. And don’t be afraid to give yourself ‘healthy’ cheats, like a few chocolate-covered strawberries or coconut chia seed pudding. The moment you start depriving yourself is when you start to feel like you’re missing out on something and you want to binge.

HEALTH.COM: 10 Mistakes That Make Cravings Worse

You’re doing too much cardio

Yes, cardio is a necessary part of your workout routine. It keeps your heart healthy, boosts your metabolism, and gives you a good sweat (you should break one daily). However, only doing cardio—or doing too much of it—can actually add to the problem. Longer cardio sessions like staying on the elliptical for 90 minutes or going for regular 10-mile runs can eat away at your lean muscle mass, which is essential for increasing your metabolism to burn more calories.

It causes the body to become more endurance-focused, storing energy as fat to ensure it has plenty of reserve fuel to keep you going for all those miles. Not to mention it dramatically increases your appetite, making you more susceptible to unnecessary snacking or overeating.

You’re not lifting weights

This one goes hand in hand with #3. I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t do cardio. If you love to run or bike for reasons other than losing weight, then by all means don’t stop. But if your primary goal is fat loss, there are other forms of exercise that give a much better bang for your buck. The best way to lose weight and build lean muscle by doing some form of strength training in addition to your cardio. The more muscle tone your body has, the more fat you’ll burn.

If you’re not ready to give up your cardio routine just yet, try adding some interval training by performing short bursts of all-out effort mixed into your regular session. These workouts are much more effective at promoting hormones that target stubborn fat. Then, start adding some resistance training to your routine. Body weight exercises like push-ups, squats, and lunges are a great place to start to help build up to lifting actual weights.

HEALTH.COM: 10 Exercise Cheats You’ve Got to Stop Doing

You’re not working hard enough

There’s no exact equation to working out and eating healthy—it’s a matter of trial and error, finding out what works specifically for your body. And more time spent in the gym doesn’t always equal a more fit person. Unless you’re an athlete, body builder, or a marathoner-in-training, the average person shouldn’t be working out more than an hour a day.

Your workouts should be intensity-dependent, not time dependent. Keep this fact in mind: the harder you work, the shorter your workout time may need to be. That’s why it’s so important to maximize your time spent in the gym or fitness class so you can achieve that coveted ‘afterburn’ effect which keeps your metabolism revved for 24-48 hours afterward.

You’re not taking time to recover

When you do achieve that afterburn and you’re really feeling your workout the next day, those are the days to focus on different muscle groups. Or, if you prefer to work out your whole body, establish a workout routine where you work your entire body one day and then take the next day to do light cardio, stretching, or complete rest.

Recovery and rest are often more important than the workout itself. It’s during those periods that your body does most of the actual fat burning. So give yourself that time to fully recover so you’re ready to work hard the following day. Most importantly, listen to your body. Push yourself, but also give it some love, too.

HEALTH.COM: 27 Mistakes Healthy People Make

Your body is under too much stress

Exercise is a stressor on your body. When you have a healthy balance of exercise-related stress and recovery time, your body is healthy and can lose its excess fat. However, not giving your body enough time to recover can also be a negative (see above) as you’ll start to produce an excessive amount of cortisol, a stress hormone. Cortisol is both normal and important when working out, it’s involved in processes that give your muscles the energy needed to get moving.

However, when your body is exposed to cortisol for longer periods of time, it starts to cause negative effects, like stubborn fat in areas you don’t want. Exercise isn’t the only stressor that can produce excess cortisol. A stressful personal or professional life can also make your body produce too much of this hormone. When you stop exercising, your body stops producing cortisol; however, it may not be quite as easy to turn off the mental stressors going on in your life. Make sure you’re keeping your mental and emotional health in check in addition to your physical health. You should strive for total-body wellness.

HEALTH.COM: 13 Ways to Relieve Stress Instantly

This article originally appeared on Health.com.

TIME vaccines

Meet the Latest Driver of the Anti-Vaccine Clown Car (Who Thinks You’re a ‘Bad Mother’)

Not your friend: The measles virus—highly magnified—is exceedingly easy to transmit
Not your friend: The measles virus—highly magnified—is exceedingly easy to transmit Dr. Gopal Murti/Visuals Unlimited

Jeffrey Kluger is Editor at Large for TIME.

A doctor who should know better peddles dangerous rubbish

Vanity doesn’t die; misinformation doesn’t die; arrogance and narcissism and opportunism don’t die. But you know what does die? Children. That’s worth keeping in mind as the latest carnival barker from the anti-vaccine community steps up for his ignoble hour of attention.

The new medical reprobate is Dr. Jack Wolfson, an Arizona-based cardiologist and practitioner of holistic medicine. Until recently, he was a largely unknown character—which was a very, very good thing. But in the wake of the California measles outbreak that originated in Disneyland and has so far infected 93 people in eight states and Mexico, he has picked up the megaphone of social and mainstream media to inveigh against vaccines as unsafe, unnecessary, stuffed with toxins and, well, never mind. You know this drill.

The vaccines he condemns would, of course, include the measles vaccine, which was not widely available before 1980 when 2.6 million people died of the disease each year, and which, when it did become available, quickly slashed that death toll by 99.4%. Measles was declared eradicated in the U.S. in 2000—but even now, 1,000 people are being monitored in Wolfson’s own state for possible exposure to the Disneyland strain, which got a toehold in the first place only because of the nation’s falling vaccination rate.

But never mind that. Wolfson has junk science to sell, and he’s going to sell it. “We should be getting measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, these are the rights of our children to get it,” he told the Arizona Republic.

“Don’t be mad at me for speaking the truth about vaccines,” he told The Washington Post. “Be mad at yourself, because you’re, frankly, a bad mother. You didn’t ask once about those vaccines. You didn’t ask about the chemicals in them.”

CNN inexplicably afforded Wolfson the familiar split-screen, point-counterpoint platform to argue the vaccine issue with another doctor—as if there were any argument to begin with. The network touted the exchange on CNN.com as “Fiery Vaccine Debate,” which likely earned the site some clicks and gave Wolfson a patina of legitimacy in return.

The thing is though, he’s not legitimate—not as a person whose vaccine advice should be heeded at least—as the agitprop nonsense he offers on the alternative medicine site Health Impact News reveals. Concerned parents and health care providers should not be angry at him for selling his anti-vax bill of goods, he repeats. Instead, “Be angry at food companies. Sugar cereals, donuts, cookies, and cupcakes lead to millions of deaths per year. At its worst, chicken pox killed 100 people per year. If those chicken pox people didn’t eat cereal and donuts, they may still be alive.”

You should be angry at the people who make Bounce and Downy too, because, “You and your children are wearing and breathing known carcinogens” contained in the laundry sheets and fabric softener. “These products kill more people than mumps.”

But most of all, be angry at yourselves, you parents who vaccinate. Why? Because, “Let’s face it, you don’t really give a crap what your children eat. You don’t care about chemicals in their life.”

There is so very much more wrong with Wolfson and the rubbish he’s selling. There is his supposedly unanswerable riposte about the irrelevance of polio. “Where are all those 80 year olds crippled by polio?” he asks. “I can’t seem to find many.” That’s right, you can’t, because the disease has been vaccinated into extinction in all but three countries in the world. If you were looking around before 1955 you’d see plenty of them.

There is his similar dismissal of measles. “What we’re really talking about is just a fever and a rash,” he says. Yes, a fever and a rash that still kills 145,700 unvaccinated people per year. And what does 145,700 people look like? Picture four sold-out Fenway Parks. Now kill all of those people—mostly children. Every year.

Wolfson, like most anti-vaxxers, rails broadly and emptily at the “chemicals” in vaccines and argues that we shouldn’t be putting them into our children’s bodies. But arginine and alinine and octene and hexanal and 2-methyl butyraldehyde are chemicals too and they’re just five of the 73 you put in your body every time you eat a blueberry. Chemicals are not, by definition, bad things. Wolfson similarly rhapsodizes about “nature,” setting it in make-believe opposition to things that are synthetic or invented and therefore, by binary definition, are bad. But as he himself argues, viruses are part of nature, as are bacteria, and as is every other disease that could kill you or your children before your time. In some cases, the whole point of medical science, to paraphrase William Buckley, is to stand athwart nature shouting “Stop!” If you want your nature pure, you’re free to die young.

At least one Arizona pediatrician, according to The Washington Post, is already talking about reporting Wolfson to the Arizona Medical Board, and that’s not an empty threat. Simply taking a contrarian position or advocating for dubious but do-no-harm nostrums is unlikely to get you in trouble with the licensing authorities. But making an argument that is wholly, empirically, medically wrong, and doing so in a way that could actually induce real parents to refuse to vaccinate real children is something that’s demonstrably dangerous.

The state’s medical board standards for disciplining members are exceedingly broad, authorizing action against a doctor who, among other things, “may be guilty of unprofessional conduct.” It would be up to the board itself to define that, but it’s not a leap to think they would do so in a way that would apply in this case.

If there’s anything good about the rise of Wolfson, it’s that it’s a sure sign the anti-vaxxers’ bench is getting thin. He lacks the telegenic sizzle of a Jenny McCarthy. He lacks the one-time credibility of an Andrew Wakefield, whose fraudulent 1998 paper got the phony vaccines-autism link started. The paper has now been retracted and Wakefield has been stripped of his license to practice medicine.

Wolfson, like the others, will have his moment, and then, like the others, he is likely to go away. We will never know for sure how many children will be harmed by his misinformation before he’s finally gone.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME Research

Why You’re Less Likely to Die in a Car Than Ever Before

Traffic
Heavy automobile traffic on the Harbor Freeway is viewed at sunset on Jan. 27, 2012 in Los Angeles. George Rose—Getty Images

'Motor vehicles are safer than they ever have been in the past'

The chances of dying in a car crash in a new vehicle have declined dramatically in recent years to their lowest point ever, according to a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Improvements to vehicle safety technology since the mid-1980s saved 7,700 lives in the United States in 2012 alone, the study found.

“There’s all the bad news about recalls, which make it sound like vehicles are getting less safe,” says IIHS president Adrian Lund. “What these results show is that motor vehicles are safer than they ever have been in the past. This is a huge reduction of people dying as occupants of motor vehicles in crashes.”

The study, which looked at data on deaths in 2011 model year vehicles, found that no one died in nine vehicle models. The death rate per million registered vehicle years, a number that represents how many people died per the number of years a car is registered to be on the road, declined to 28 for 2011 model cars. That rate was 87 for cars made a decade earlier, Lund says.

The report attributed much of that improvement to changes in technology. Electronic stability control, for instance, has been incorporated into many vehicles and prevented deaths when vehicles roll over. The effect of the technology has been particularly noticeable in SUVs. Once among the most dangerous cars on the road, many SUVs are now among the safest vehicles. Six of the nine vehicles without a death were SUVs.

Lund says he anticipates that car safety will improve along with the introduction of new technology in the near future, but he also acknowledges that movements by governments and regulators to cut down on traffic deaths have the potential to reduce traffic deaths dramatically. In particular, Vision Zero—a movement adopted by various cities and countries aimed at eliminating such deaths—has the potential to save lives, he says.

“If we’re really going to get to zero, then we’re really going to need action on a lot of fronts,” he says. “We don’t have to wait just for vehicle technology to achieve Vision Zero.”

Nonetheless, Lund notes that car manufacturers are “closing in on their target” of making their cars free of death and serious injury.

The nine models that were fatality-free were Audi A4 (four-wheel drive), Honda Odyssey, Kia Sorento (two-wheel drive), the Lexus RX 350 (four-wheel drive), Mercedes-Benz GL-Class (four-wheel drive), Subaru Legacy (four-wheel drive), Toyota Highlander hybrid (four-wheel drive), Toyota Sequoia (four-wheel drive) and Volvo XC90 (four-wheel drive).

Three cars had more more than 100 deaths per million registered vehicle years: Kia Rio, Nissan Versa sedan and Hyundai Accent.

TIME public health

Super Bowl Teams’ Cities See 18% Spike in Flu Death

Super Bowl Football
The University of Phoenix Stadium, host of Super Bowl XLIX, is seen on Jan. 29, 2015, in Glendale, Ariz. Charlie Riedel—AP

Call it Super Bowl fever. In cities that send teams to the big February game, researchers see an 18% spike in flu death in adults age 65 and older, a new paper from Tulane University shows. And the effect can get seven times worse when the game happens close to the peak of a particularly bad flu season—like the one we’re in right now.

Economists looked at cities hosting and sending teams to the Super Bowl between 1974 and 2009 and analyzed data from death records, population and weather. Cities that hosted the Super Bowl weren’t at increased risk for negative health outcomes, they found—probably in part because they tended to be in warmer areas, which protects against the flu. But in the cities that sent a team to the game, there was an 18% spike in influenza deaths in people 65 and older.

Researchers were able to determine causality, they say, since participation in the Super Bowl is as good as random. And it’s not like the heartbreak of a losing team could be blamed: There wasn’t a difference between winners and losers as the effect seemed to occur in the time leading up to the game, says lead author Charles Stoecker, PhD, assistant professor in the department of global health management and policy at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine.

Can you blame the spike in socializing and the communal nachos? “People go out to a bar or to a Super Bowl party, and they have contact with people they wouldn’t normally or in ways they wouldn’t normally,” he says. “There’s few occasions when we share chips and dip.”

MORE: Here’s How Many Calories You’ll Eat During the Super Bowl

Flu death spikes are common after big one-time events like the winter Olympics and rock festivals, Stoecker says, but the Super Bowl may be in a league of its own since it always happens squarely in flu season.

Would it be a good idea to move the Super Bowl out of the bounds of flu season? Maybe, says Stoecker, especially in years when the influenza strain looks particularly deadly—or in years like this one, when the flu vaccine is only 23% effective. “In lieu of canceling the Super Bowl outright, it would be one way of mitigating transmission.”

So if you must dip, do your part to help: Wash your hands first.

TIME Mental Health/Psychology

Lonely, Depressed People Are More Likely to Binge-Watch TV

The habit is a way to forget about negative feelings

Turns out that a Walking Dead marathon may not be a healthy way to bust stress at the end of a long week: a study from the University of Texas has found that people who struggle with loneliness and depression are more likely to binge-watch television than their peers. The activity provides an escape from their unpleasant feelings.

Unsurprisingly, they also found that people with low levels of self-control were more likely to binge-watch, letting the next episode auto-roll even when they knew they should be spending their time more productively.

The researchers said that binge-watching should no longer be seen as a “harmless addiction” and pointed out that the activity is related to obesity, fatigue and other health concerns.

[Deadline Hollywood]

TIME public health

What You Should Know About Chronic Lyme Disease

Yolanda Foster on 'Watch What Happens Live'
Yolanda Foster on Watch What Happens Live on Dec. 23, 2014. Bravo—NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images

Lyme disease affects about 300,000 people in the U.S. each year

Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Yolanda Foster is making waves with her recent blog post about her struggle with chronic Lyme disease. Foster, who was diagnosed with Lyme in 2012, according to People.com, says she’s had severe mental impairment from her condition, writing, “I have lost the ability to read, write, or even watch TV, because I can’t process information or any stimulation for that matter.”

But don’t antibiotics cure Lyme disease and, if so, what exactly is chronic Lyme? Health has the scoop:

What is Lyme disease and how is it treated?

Lyme disease is a bacterial infection, caused by the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi and transmitted by ticks. It hits more of us than we realize—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that about 300,000 people are diagnosed with the disorder each year, about 10 times higher than the number actually reported to the CDC. Left untreated, it can cause symptoms such as headaches and neck stiffness, pain and swelling in joints, even neurological symptoms such as memory problems.

Lyme is diagnosed based on symptoms (including the distinctive “bull’s-eye rash“) and blood tests. Most people recover with a 21-day course of antibiotics, though if the disease has spread to your central nervous system, you may need a longer course (2-4 weeks) of intravenous antibiotics.

HEALTH.COM: 15 Diseases Doctors Often Get Wrong

Is there such a thing as chronic Lyme?

While in rare cases an infection can still persist, “when patients talk about chronic Lyme, they’re usually referring to what doctors term ‘post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome,’ where you still have a cluster of symptoms such as fatigue, trouble concentrating, and muscle and joint aches after treatment,” explains Brian Fallon, MD, MPH, director of the Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Center at Columbia University Medical Center. The CDC says approximately 10 to 20% of Lyme disease patients will have lingering symptoms like these. While it’s not clear what causes it, “it could be damage done to the body by the bacteria itself, or it could even be neurotransmitter changes in the brain induced by the prior Lyme disease,” Dr. Fallon says.

How is post-Lyme syndrome treated?

The treatment is itself controversial, mainly because it’s virtually impossible to tell if symptoms remain due to a recurrent infection or if they’re due to residual damage from Lyme. “The current diagnostic tests just reveal whether someone has antibodies due to previous exposure to Lyme disease, so while they indicate if you’ve ever been infected, they don’t show whether or not you’re infected now,” explains Dr. Fallon.

HEALTH.COM: The Best and Worst Foods for Pain

A small subgroup of doctors argue that the condition is caused by residual bacterial infection and should be treated with long-term antibiotic therapy for months or even years. (Indeed, animal studies do suggest that Lyme infection may persist in some cases, Dr. Fallon says.) However, groups such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America frown on this approach. “There’s no research to show that this type of treatment works—several studies have shown that people taking long-term antibiotic for Lyme disease to treat lingering symptoms fare the same as those who take placebo,” states Chris Ohl, MD, an infectious disease expert at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center.

Dr. Fallon allows for another possibility: Lyme bacteria are “very slow growing, so if you go off antibiotics but find your symptoms return within two to three weeks, it’s highly unlikely that Lyme is the culprit,” he explains. “But if they return within a few months, or even a year, you may have a recurrent infection” and thus may need another (short) course of antibiotics.

If it’s not really Lyme, what causes those symptoms?

It could be another condition entirely—such as another tick-borne infection. “It may very well be that [a patient has] developed an autoimmune disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, which was triggered by the Lyme disease,” adds Dr. Fallon.

HEALTH.COM: 15 Surprising Facts About Rheumatoid Arthritis

“Most of the cases I’ve seen, we’ve done a thorough workup and eventually come up with an underlying condition like anemia, a thyroid condition, a viral infection like Epstein-Barr virus, or even hepatitis C,” says Michael Parry, MD, Thomas J. Bradsell Chair of Infectious Diseases at Stamford Hospital in Stamford, Connecticut.

If extensive testing reveals nothing, then most doctors recommend cautious monitoring and addressing the symptoms (for example, treating joint or muscle pain with either over-the-counter or prescription anti-inflammatory drugs). It’s also important to utilize therapies also used with conditions like chronic fatigue syndrome, including good sleep and exercise habits and, if needed, treatment for depression.

HEALTH.COM: 19 Signs Your Thyroid Isn’t Working Right

This article originally appeared on Health.com.

TIME Alcohol

Buzz Kill: Three Daily Alcoholic Drinks May Boost Stroke Risk

More than two drinks per day was defined by the study's authors as "heavy" drinking

You may want to keep that third beer of the night stashed in your fridge.

People in their 50s and 60s who down more than two alcoholic beverages daily have a 34 percent higher risk of stroke compared to lighter drinkers — and are more apt to suffer a stroke five years earlier in life regardless of their genetics or their other health habits, asserts a study released Thursday.

In fact, sipping beyond a two-drink maximum each day may boost a middle-aged person’s stroke risk more than even traditional health dangers like high blood pressure and diabetes, say researchers who base their findings on tracking more than 11,000 Swedish twins for roughly half their lives.

Read the rest of the story from our partners at NBC News

TIME Infectious Disease

The Disneyland Measles Outbreak Likely Came From Overseas

Mickey Mouse performing during a parade at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., Jan. 22, 2015.
Mickey Mouse performing during a parade at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., Jan. 22, 2015. Jae C. Hong—AP

Health professionals say the outbreak highlights the need for childhood vaccinations

An outbreak of measles that began in California’s Disneyland is likely to have come from overseas, health officials said Thursday.

The highly infectious disease was probably carried into the U.S. by a foreign tourist or an American returning home, NBC News reports.

Ninety-four people have now been infected with measles across eight states; 67 of those cases are linked to the Disneyland park.

“We don’t know exactly how this outbreak started but we do think it was likely a person infected with measles overseas,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Schuchat says the reason for the outbreak is because people are failing to get vaccinated.

[NBC]

TIME Research

Most Americans and Scientists Tend to Disagree, Survey Finds

science chemistry beakers
Getty Images

And that's not a good thing, scientists say

Regular Americans and their scientist counterparts think much differently about science-related issues, according to a new pair of surveys.

The Pew Research Center, in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, asked 5,750 American citizens and scientists their opinions on a series of scientific topics. They found striking gaps between the two groups, particularly on issues related to biomedical science.

Food is a major source of friction for the both camps. A full 57% of Americans think that consuming genetically modified foods is unsafe, but 88% of scientists say GMO foods are safe to eat. Pesticide use is another contentious issue: 68% of scientists think it’s safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, while only 28% of lay Americans agree.

When it comes to using animals in research, 89% of scientists give the practice the green light, but only 47% of Americans are ok with it—and 50% of Americans are against the use of animals in research. Non-scientist Americans were also far less likely to believe in evolution than scientists.

On eight of the 13 topics, researchers saw at least a 20-percentage point gap in opinion between Americans and scientists. That’s a troubling statistic, scientists say. According to the survey, 84% of them believe the public’s lack of knowledge about the field is a major problem.

Scientists and non-scientists agree on at least one topic, however: neither group thinks that science, technology, engineering and math education in American elementary and high schools is performing well enough when compared to programs across the globe.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser