The Wakefield scandal plays an important role in science ethics, accountability and history. Wakefield's determination to gain trust with his clients for financial reasons instead of trying to gain trust with the entire public, is a true statement of how science can take a wrong turn. Interested after reading Wakefield's article as well as the retraction of the article by The Lancet, I became interested in what the true effects happened after the article was published and then believed. The results were astounding. Vaccination rates decreased a large amount in Europe and in the United States as parents began to worry about their children contracting autism symptoms. as a result, there was a dramatic increase in cases of measles, with a corresponding increase in illness as well as deaths of children. Immunization rates in Britain "dropped from 92 percent to 73 percent, and were as low as 50 percent in some parts of London." As for the United States, as much as 125,000 children born in the late 1990s did not receive the MMR vaccine, more than likely because of the increasing weariness brought about by the dramatic suspension held by media outlets about Wakefield's published results. As we discussed in class, his clients were not a random sample at all, but were children of clients suing against the MMR vaccine producers. Not only this, but as we also noticed in the article, his correlations did not provide strong causations between the MMR vaccine causing autism. His t table did not even include all 12 children in which he studied, but only 8. In many cases, he generalizes on where he got his information on the patients' medical history ("confirmed by professional assessors" p. 638, "all [children] had been assessed professionally elsewhere" p. 637). For example, through further research, the children did not have inflammatory bowel syndrome that was recorded in the raw data.
As was the case, the entire article is stated to be full of misinformation, especially with the medical history of the patients. His research has been called a hoax for publicity as well as for profit. 10 out of 13 of the original authors of the article renounced the article and conclusions as the news was revealed in 2009 that after 12 years of the article's release, that finally The Lancet retracted the paper. Wakefield is coincidentally had his medical license taken away in the UK. In the end, Wakefield was accused of 3 dozen charges, "...including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children" (Wikipedia). He was found to have practiced dangerous and invasive medical procedures on the children, such as a colonoscopy and a Lumbar puncture. Personally, I am surprised that advocates of Wakefield's research are not also concerned with his reported accountability in the medical studies on the children.
This research has astounded me to no end. Not only because of the horrible implications after the false research, but mostly because I would have probably been one of those people who believed the research to be true! I feel that people, especially parents, are pretty weary on what they read when it comes to possible dangers to children (if they have no prior, personal connections to the issue at hand). But the article becomes way more credible if only because it's considered "scientific research" published in a prestigious medical research journal. To then know that the research might have been false, greatly decreases a positive attitude towards scientific institutions. This reminds me of when National Geographic published an article on the "Archeoraptor," or what is known as the fossil which was the "missing link" between theropods and birds. The fossil was actually fraudulent, with several pieces of different fossils being stuck together (I am studying anthropology right now, so this was the first example I could think of), but the research was published anyways, even stating that it was 100% credible. These rare instances in which scientific institutions overlook true data sadly become a worldwide sensation. This is why the average person is looked at as a better source of news and facts rather than "profit-making" organizations.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/articles/2011/01/06/will_autism_fraud_report_be_a_vaccine_booster/
http://www.medicaldiscoverynews.com/shows/237_wakefieldAutism.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield#Epidemics_and_effects
Awesome post Caitlin! As we learned in class, the only real statistic Wakefield used was rather weak, and didn't even involve the entire testing population. There could be a multitude of reasons why he did this, but my suspicion is that he may have been covering something up, or "enhancing" the difference between his test and control groups.
ReplyDeleteI also find it appalling that Wakefield used dangerous procedures when evaluating the children. While reading the article, I thought that the amount of tests done to confirm something that was already accepted (the fact that they had intestinal trouble) was rather large and unnecessary. To me, it seemed that all the article said was, "Here are 12 kids that have a developmental problems and have been diagnosed with intestinal troubles. Oh, and they all got an MMR vaccine at some point."
We need to be careful when reading scientific articles. Jenny McCarthy clearly did not read the article carefully, or she would have noticed the disclaimer that there was not yet evidence that linked MMR and autism. In addition, we also need to be critical of what we are reading, even if it is a prestigious journal. I tend to take everything as fact when I read papers, and it is only when it is as obvious as this study when I discount it.