Asymmetric participation of defenders and critics of vaccines to debates on French-speaking Twitter.

For more than a decade, doubt about vaccines has become an increasingly important global issue. Polarization of opinions on this matter, especially through social media, has been repeatedly observed, but details about the balance of forces are left unclear. In this paper, we analyse the flow of information on vaccines on the French-speaking realm of Twitter between 2016 and 2017. Two major asymmetries appear. Rather than opposing themselves on each vaccine, defenders and critics focus on different vaccines and vaccine-related topics. Pro-vaccine accounts focus on hopes for new groundbreaking vaccines and on ongoing outbreaks of vaccine-preventable illnesses. Vaccine critics concentrate their posts on a limited number of "controversial" vaccines and adjuvants. Furthermore, vaccine-critical accounts display greater craft and energy, using a wider variety of sources, and a more coordinated set of hashtags. This double asymmetry can have serious consequences. Despite the presence of a large number of pro-vaccine accounts, some arguments raised by efficiently organized and very active vaccine-critical activists are left unanswered.

Why Molière most likely did write his plays.

As for Shakespeare, a hard-fought debate has emerged about Molière, a supposedly uneducated actor who, according to some, could not have written the masterpieces attributed to him. In the past decades, the century-old thesis according to which Pierre Corneille would be their actual author has become popular, mostly because of new works in computational linguistics. These results are reassessed here through state-of-the-art attribution methods. We study a corpus of comedies in verse by major authors of Molière and Corneille's time. Analysis of lexicon, rhymes, word forms, affixes, morphosyntactic sequences, and function words do not give any clue that another author among the major playwrights of the time would have written the plays signed under the name Molière.

France's citizen consultation on vaccination and the challenges of participatory democracy in health.

BACKGROUND: Confronted with a rise in vaccine hesitancy, public health officials increasingly try to involve the public in the policy decision-making process to foster consensus and public acceptability. In public debates and citizen consultations tensions can arise between the principles of science and of democracy. To illustrate this, we analyzed the 2016 citizen consultation on vaccination organized in France. This consultation led to the decision to extend mandatory vaccination. METHODS: The analysis combines qualitative and quantitative methods. We analyze the organization of the consultation and its reception using the documents provided by its organizing committee, articles of newsmedia and the contents of 299 vaccine-critical websites. Using methods from computational linguistics, we investigate the 10435 public comments posted to the consultation's official website. RESULTS: The combination of a narrow framing of debates (how to restore trust in vaccination and raise vaccination coverages) and a specific organization (latitude was given to the orientation committee with a strong presence of medical experts) was successful in avoiding legitimizing vaccine critical arguments. But these choices have been at the expense of a real reflection on the acceptability of mandatory vaccination and it did not quell vaccine-critical mobilizations. CONCLUSIONS: Public health officials must be aware that when trying to increase democratic participation into their decision-making process, how they balance inputs from the various actors and how they frame the discussion determine whether this initiative will provide meaningful information and democratic legitimacy.