whittallguilt

SocietyAugust 21, 2018

Some things Pike River’s Peter Whittall could feel guilt over

whittallguilt

The former CEO of the Pike River mine says he doesn’t feel guilty over the explosion that killed 29 of his workers. Hayden Donnell lists a few things that should twig his conscience.

Peter Whittall, who was boss of the Pike River mine when it blew up and killed 29 men, doesn’t feel guilty. The former Pike River Coal Ltd chief executive gave an interview to the Sunday Star-Times this weekend in which he talked about the “dark times” he’s been through since the 2010 disaster. Everyone connected to Pike River had suffered in some way, he told Jonathan Marshall.

He, for instance, was unemployed for three years after the mine he oversaw exploded, killing Pike River employees and trapping their remains underground. Even now he’s happily married and living on a $1.3 million lifestyle block south of Sydney, he is still haunted by the “tragedy”. But does he feel guilt? “No,” he said. “It is human nature to blame someone.”

Whittall believed he had “nothing to be ashamed of”, in the Sunday Star-Times‘ summary, and that he couldn’t feel guilty because no-one could tell him exactly what triggered the deadly blast inside his mine. “Do I actually know what happened? No, I don’t,” he said. “It was a terrible tragedy but I would defend my position because I feel I always put the interests of my staff and workforce before everything.”

He added: “Do I have an apology to make to the families? I think it’s a tragedy and I absolutely apologise that it ever happened to them.”

People are innocent until proven guilty, and charges against Whittall under the Health and Safety in Employment Act were dropped in 2013 – a decision later ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. But if Whittall really can’t find anything that pricks his conscience he might try expanding his mind past that fatal moment, and into the vast reservoir of reported negligence and incompetence that preceded it, much of which he directly oversaw.

He could look at the fact the mine he had a vital role in developing had essentially become a death trap. Many of the gas sensors inside Pike River hadn’t been functioning for weeks in the lead-up to the explosion on November 19, 2010. The ones that did work painted a terrifying picture. Hand-held sensors carried by employees routinely made catastrophic gas readings. Methane was recorded at explosive levels 21 times in the 48 days before the disaster. Any respectable mine would have been shut down while the gas spikes were investigated. Pike River kept running.

Whittall could consider feeling ashamed over his involvement in the establishment of a disastrous safety culture, or over the fact he approved a dangerous mine design. Pike River didn’t have a second exit, which was illegal, and would have made escape virtually impossible if the main mine drift was blocked. Its primary ventilation fan was underground instead of on the surface, which meant it was impossible to reach after a disaster. Whittall allowed both unsafe features to be built, and could feel a pang of conscience over the fact they may have been a factor in 29 deaths.

If Whittall still doesn’t feel guilty about those failings, he could at least regret the business culture that informed them. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Pike River disaster said Whittall and the rest of the mine managers prioritised profits over worker safety. Due to a series of poor decisions, including Whittall opting to buy three malfunctioning machines, Pike River mine was in dire financial straits when it exploded. Despite that, Whittall persisted in promising impossible production volumes to shareholders. Workers were tasked with meeting these desperate and illusory targets at the expense of measures that should have kept them alive.

All this was Whittall’s responsibility. He was Pike River’s first employee. His first and most important job was creating a mine that wouldn’t explode. On that, he failed.

But if even that doesn’t make him feel anything like guilt, he should reflect on how the families of the 29 men who died inside Pike River have been treated. In 2013, Judge Jane Farish convicted Pike River Coal Ltd of nine breaches of the Health and Safety in Employment Act at the Greymouth District Court. She said a worse case of health and safety failures was “hard to imagine” and ordered the company to pay the families of the Pike River dead $3.41 million in damages. Despite that damning judgement, the families only received $5000 each because the company Whittall once headed was in receivership and claimed it was unable to pay. It had already spent its $2 million liability insurance payout on legal fees.

Whittall could reflect, too, on the way he treated the families in the aftermath of the disaster. Given the Pike River mine’s design, there was never any real hope anyone survived the first explosion. Nevertheless, Whittall persisted in telling the families their loved ones could be clinging to life, giving more optimistic briefings than he had agreed on with police superintendent Gary Knowles, according to Rebecca Macfie’s book Tragedy at Pike River Mine.

When a second explosion on November 24, 2010, ended any chance of finding survivors inside the mine, Whittall was assigned the task of telling the families their loved ones were dead. His statement was meant to be brief and to-the-point. Instead he opened by talking about the context of the explosion – how earlier in the day gas levels had declined and Mines Rescue had prepared to launch a rescue. “People instantly began to cheer and clap,” Macfie wrote. “[Gary] Knowles, [Gerry] Brownlee and Whittall raised their arms for silence, knowing the message was going terribly wrong. Whittall tried to go on but was unable to.”

On that day, Whittall couldn’t face the consequences of his mistakes. He couldn’t own up to the ugly reality staring him in the face. And that seems to persist even now.


The Bulletin is The Spinoff’s acclaimed, free daily curated digest of all the most important stories from around New Zealand delivered directly to your inbox each morning.

Sign up now


Keep going!
Vaccines are still on. Please call ahead. (Photo: Getty Images)
Vaccines are still on. Please call ahead. (Photo: Getty Images)

ScienceAugust 20, 2018

Why vaccine opponents think they know more than medical experts

Vaccines are still on. Please call ahead. (Photo: Getty Images)
Vaccines are still on. Please call ahead. (Photo: Getty Images)

Could the Dunning-Kruger effect – when individuals’ ignorance about a particular subject makes them believe they’re more expert than they are – be the reason for intractably anti-vax views? Three scientists tested the hypothesis.

One of the most contentious areas of health policy over the past two decades has been the safety of vaccination. Vaccines prevent the outbreak of diseases that used to be widespread, like polio, and scientific consensus strongly supports their safety. Yet many parents refuse or delay the vaccination of their children out of fear that it could lead to autism, even though scientific consensus refutes this claim.

Anti-vaccine attitudes have been fueled in large part by growing rates of autism diagnoses as well as a now debunked study in The Lancet that linked autism and the measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccine – pushing many parents to see vaccination as a potential explanation for their child’s autism diagnosis.

The growing “anti-vax” movement here and abroad has seen parents refuse to give their children mandatory school vaccinations, growing numbers of celebrities questioning vaccine safety, and even pet owners refusing to vaccinate their dogs – forcing the British Veterinary Association to issue a statement in April that dogs cannot develop autism.

Given the consistent message from the scientific community about the safety of vaccines, and evidence of vaccine success as seen through the eradication of diseases, why has the skepticism about vaccines continued?

One possibility is that attitudes about medical experts help to explain the endorsement of anti-vax attitudes. Specifically, building on past research, our research team contends that some U.S. adults might support anti-vax policy positions in part because they believe they know more than medical experts about autism and its causes. We wanted to test this theory.

A doctor’s assistant prepares a vaccine against measles, rubella, mumps and chicken pox, February 26, 2015 in Berlin, Germany. The German government recorded 929 measles cases in 2017, almost three times more than the 325 cases in 2016. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Vaccine scepticism and knowledge

Vaccination has been one of public health’s greatest success stories. It led to the eradication of smallpox and to widespread elimination of polio. Eradication of a disease means that it has been permanently wiped out and that intervention efforts are no longer necessary; smallpox so far is the only disease that has been eradicated. Elimination means a reduction to zero incidence in a specific geographic area as a result of deliberate efforts. Vaccination has protected millions from the ravages of tetanus, whooping cough and even chicken pox.

And yet, vaccine scepticism persists, extending into the political realm, with many politicians questioning the safety of vaccines. Most notably, President Donald Trump has questioned the credentials of doctors calling for vaccination, pushed for slowed vaccination schedules, and tapped vaccine sceptic Robert Kennedy Jr. to chair an administrative panel on vaccine safety.

We wondered: Could the inability of anti-vaxxers to accurately appraise their own knowledge and skills compared to those of medical experts play a role in shaping their attitudes about vaccines? This inability to accurately appraise one’s own knowledge is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, first identified in social psychology. Dunning-Kruger effects occur when individuals’ lack of knowledge about a particular subject leads them to inaccurately gauge their expertise on that subject. Ignorance of one’s own ignorance can lead people who lack knowledge on a subject think of themselves as more expert than those who are comparatively better informed. We refer to this as “overconfidence”.

The MMR vaccine: prevents measles, has no link to autism, according to actual, real scientists. Photo: Istock

Dunning-Kruger effects and anti-vax attitudes

To test our hypothesis, our research asked more than 1,300 Americans in December 2017 to compare their own perceived levels of knowledge about the causes of autism to those of medical doctors and scientists. After doing that, we asked respondents to answer a series of factual knowledge questions about autism, as well as the extent to which they agree with misinformation about a potential link between childhood vaccines and autism.

We found that 34% of U.S. adults in our sample feel that they know as much or more than scientists about the causes of autism. Slightly more, or 36%, feel the same way about their knowledge relative to that of medical doctors.

We also found strong evidence of Dunning-Kruger effects in our sample. Sixty-two percent of those who performed worst on our autism knowledge test believe that they know as much or more than both doctors and scientists about the causes of autism, compared to only 15% of those scoring best on the knowledge test. Likewise, 71% of those who strongly endorse misinformation about the link between vaccines and autism feel that they know as much or more than medical doctors about the causes of autism, compared to only 28% of those who most strongly reject that misinformation.

We recently published our findings at the journal Social Science and Medicine.

Photo: Getty Images

How does this affect vaccine policy?

Our research also finds that these Dunning-Kruger effects have important implications for vaccine policy.

In addition to gauging autism knowledge, our survey asked respondents to share their opinions on several aspects of vaccine policy. For example, we asked respondents whether or not they support parents’ decisions to not vaccinate their children before sending them to public schools. Respondents could tell us whether they strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree with that statement.

We found that nearly a third, or 30%, of people who think that they know more than medical experts about the causes of autism strongly support giving parents the latitude to not vaccinate their children. In contrast, 16% of those who do not think that they know more than medical professionals felt the same way.

Our study also finds that people who think they know more than medical experts are more likely to trust information about vaccines from non-expert sources, such as celebrities. These individuals are also more likely to support a strong role for non-experts in the process of making policies that pertain to vaccines and vaccination.

An uphill battle?

Ultimately, our results point to the uphill battle that the scientific community faces as it confronts growing anti-vax sentiment from the public and politicians alike. Even as the mountain of evidence on the safety and importance of vaccines from doctors and scientists continues to grow, many Americans think they know more than the experts trying to correct their misperceptions.

Therefore, finding new ways to present scientific consensus on vaccines to an audience sceptical of medical experts should be a priority. Our research suggests that one interesting area for future research could be to examine whether pro-vaccine information from non-expert sources like celebrities could persuade those with anti-vaccine policy attitudes to change their minds.

Authors: Matthew Motta, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Pennsylvania; Steven Sylvester, Assistant professor, public policy, Utah Valley University, and Timothy Callaghan, Assistant Professor, Texas A&M University School of Public Health, Texas A&M University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.