The following blog post is in reference to the MMR research performed by Wakefield et al.
This is probably
the most classic case of a piece of research going wrong. I use the term ‘research’
in the previous sentence very loosely. This is a classic case of fraud that
went too far. Basically, the work was done by a now former researcher named
Andrew Wakefield. He put together a bunch of data that showed a link between
MMR vaccine and a new form of Autism. All of the data was proven to be false
and Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine and is no longer a
researcher. I would like to use this blog post to comment on some of the more
interesting aspects from this case of deception.
One of the most interesting facts of this case is that it
was known that the research results were not very good. The study used a very
small cohort and it seemed impossible to generate the results that were
published in the paper. Even the editor at the time thought that the work
seemed very weak. This work was published in the Lancet, which is a pretty good
journal. I think this is another good point, top journals make mistakes as
well. Although, I have had a few good laughs reading some of the open access
journals recently (I’m looking at you PLOS ONE). Of course the most damaging
thing that came out of this entire ordeal is the effect it had on the general
public. Most work that is published may be retracted for dishonesty but that is
where the issue ends. The paper is retracted, researchers shamed and the world
keeps spinning. But this case led to a new breed of stupid : the anti-vaccine
movement. A group of individuals content with the idea that vaccines are bad
for their children and thus vaccination must be avoided at all costs. Vaccine,
although with much room for improvement, are probably one of the most important
scientific achievements in history. No BS, I actually believe this. The number
of lives saved by vaccination s staggering. The fact that most vaccines are
made at a low price point has made them available to a majority of the world
and led to the successful eradication of several diseases such as small pox.
Think about that for a moment. A cheap and efficient method of eradicating a
disease agent that would kill tens of thousands of people annually. But with
the anti-vaccine crowds they don’t care for this history of events. So what do
they do to justify their position? They reference the Wakefield study. This is
why the Wakefield study was so damaging. People still believe it even though it
is completely and terribly incorrect. So, in the end this study really did
damage in the public opinion arena. This work obviously is cherry picked to
prove an erroneous opinion and is the major reason why this study never should
have been published. I never knew that a journal article could turn out to be
so dangerous.
This is an interesting example of the broader implications of retractions in research, and one that I had never thought about before. Research gets published, and some of it gets picked up my more mainstream media outlets, such as the Times or the Huffington Post, just to name a few. If that research (which is only picked up by these broad news sources if it is particularly sexy), is retracted, those news outlets will likely NOT publish that the research was retracted. They'll just let it be buried in the newer posts from the site and hope? that it will be forgotten. However, in instances such as the MMR-Autism study, this retraction should have been clearly and publicly stated in any and all places that the original study was cited/referenced/published. Because of the nature of the work, it elicited emotions from people under educated in the field, and it is not easy to retract scientific "facts" and even less easy to retract emotions that those facts brought up. The greater scientific community is still trying to undo the effects of this false study, and because of the emotional component that now permeates the stance of these anti-vaxxers, I'm not sure that the damage can ever be reversed. Retraction is a much bigger deal than pulling your paper off the internet and saying "my bad".
ReplyDeleteThat is a great point, Madeline! It reminds me of another case, the "GMOs cause cancer" paper by Gilles Seralini that was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology in 2012, only to be retracted. The retraction, thankfully, was fairly high-profile, but the paper did eventually get republished elsewhere.
DeleteWhat I remember most about the incident, however, were all of the great blog posts that came out at the time, offering little nuggets of statistical wisdom to their readership, essentially using the Seralini paper as a teachable moment. One of the best was this one: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2012/09/why-i-think-the-seralini-gm-feeding-trial-is-bogus/ which involved running R simulations to determine the likelihood of Seralini obtaining his results if the null hypothesis was true.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment: What else can the scientific community do to change public opinion on this topic and is the scientific community to blame for the remaining anti-vaxxing contingency? I would argue that a retraction, a community-wide rejection of Wakefield's work and reputation are sufficient for the scientific community to move past his unethical past. However, are the same news outlets that report and perpetuate significant discoveries not responsible for educating the public about retracted information as extensively as they would about a novel discovery? I think a lot has to be said for how quickly and impartially scientific consensus can act to right a wrong, but this may or may not translate into a shift in public opinion as we see with the anti-vaxx movement. Perhaps it would be prudent for publishers who release their data to news outlets force news outlets to enter into a binding agreement that requires them to report on a specific subject throughout its timeline forcing the media to bring equal light to all aspects of the news that they report.
DeleteLet me play devil's advocate for a moment: What else can the scientific community do to change public opinion on this topic and is the scientific community to blame for the remaining anti-vaxxing contingency? I would argue that a retraction, a community-wide rejection of Wakefield's work and reputation are sufficient for the scientific community to move past his unethical past. However, are the same news outlets that report and perpetuate significant discoveries not responsible for educating the public about retracted information as extensively as they would about a novel discovery? I think a lot has to be said for how quickly and impartially scientific consensus can act to right a wrong, but this may or may not translate into a shift in public opinion as we see with the anti-vaxx movement. Perhaps it would be prudent for publishers who release their data to news outlets force news outlets to enter into a binding agreement that requires them to report on a specific subject throughout its timeline forcing the media to bring equal light to all aspects of the news that they report.
DeleteIt is interesting this post was made, as I just saw protesters against vaccination last week at the CDC. I think you make a great point Madeline. I believe there is definitely a responsibility of media to follow and update stories they report, and I think this should extend to stories related to research findings just as it does to other news. To extend Fadi's comment, I think if publishers that released data to news outlets were forced to enter into this binding agreement, it would also maybe push publishers to take a closer look at the stories they share, because if a story needs to be retracted, and that retraction is shared with the world, it would not reflect well on the publishing journal.
DeleteIt's worth mentioning the role popular media plays in this whole ordeal, though. The state of journalism is quite dismal these days – some journalists are getting paid by how many clicks their articles receive. So at the end of the day, even if they're trying their hardest to be unbiased reporters, there is some motivation to sensationalize science and write about things that will just get people's attention.
ReplyDeleteMy point here is that an article on how vaccines cause autism grabs a lot more attention than a retraction of a study from a journal. Of course, in a world where journalism is always carried out with integrity, that doesn't matter, because the truth is more important than profit. However, the state of the media isn't as great as we'd like for it to be.
Articles that get the most attention get pushed to the front page, not the articles that are the most true, or the best examples of journalism with integrity. Perhaps if only the media made as much of a hype as the retraction of the paper as they did with the publishing of the paper, we would have a few less anti-vaccination folk out there.