Just last month, I reported about a cancer study that was found to have
manipulated data. Now, according to the Sunday Times, a scientist
cooked his data to create a seeming connection between autism and a vaccine. From the story:
The doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR
vaccine [measles, mumps, rubella] for children changed and misreported results
in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a
Sunday Times investigation has found. Confidential medical documents and
interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated
patients' data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect
against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.
The
research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical
journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a
routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that
problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have
discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children's
conditions.
However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented
to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the
children's ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their
hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came
on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was
true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the
children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel
disease [sometimes associated with autism], reported in the majority of cases
that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them
as abnormal.The scientist denies the charges, but if they
are true, good grief. The study scared enough parents away from the vaccine,
that it led, according to the Times, to a "return of the measles."
What
are we to make of these kind of stories? Perhaps the problems have always been
there but get more airing now. Or has a problem developed because science has
become, in a sense, show business--with big bucks made and potential major
celebrity status gained for big discoveries or findings of intense danger? Then,
there is the issue, oft mentioned here, of some sectors of science becoming intensely ideological, leading some to
use the "study" is merely a tool for
advocacy. Still, we must keep our perspective: There is no question, that
most scientists are honest, ethical, and care a great deal about accuracy, and
that such apparent skewing is the exception, rather than the rule.
But something sure seems wrong. There
are too many of these kinds of things happening lately. And some are really big:
Think of the charlatan Hwang Wu suk, and how far he got with
his fraudulent claim, published in Science, that he had created the
first ESC cell line from cloned embryos. Perhaps the peer review process is in
trouble--some have worried about that before. Perhaps it is global warming, I
don't know. But this kind of thing has the potential to badly undermine the
public's faith in scientific findings.
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
I have just read Wesley J Smith's article and would like to add a couple of senteces to his last paragraph, I hope that he will not be offended. Professor Smith writes: Perhaps the peer review process is in trouble--some have worried about that before. Perhaps it is global warming, I don't know..
I would like to add:
But all humour aside, we might also want to ask whether the writer of this article has any knowledge of medicine or science and whether he has declared any conflict of interest.
Yes, of course scientists get involved in fraud but so do journalists. Pressumably open minded individuals should always ask themselves whether it is even vaguely possible that journalists can get away with writing on behalf of vested interests, even in the London Times.
I read the article commented on by professor Smith and I missed balance, independence and impartiality, in fact I saw not one sentence about Dr Wakefield's defence evidence, the article was undoubtedly the case for the prosecution despite the fact that the Fitness to Practice hearing at the GMC in London has not yet heard the counsel's closing speeches, let alone come in with a verdict. The hearing has been going on for almost two years now and it would take someone with greater powers of divination, than this Sunday Times journalist - unless he knows something we don't - to gainsay the outcome.
Just on that last matter, I see that quite a large number of vaccine/ autism groups have just launched a petition at:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/wakefield
asking for an international inquiry to be held into the Sunday Times, the journalist in question and any links they might have on this issue with the vaccine manufacturers.
Perhaps this is the answer and not global warming after all, much more rigorous invigilation of conflict of interest policies.