In 1998, Andrew Wakefield — a British surgeon and medical researcher — published a study that he claimed linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism in children. This claim attracted widespread media attention and led many parents to regard the vaccines as too great a health risk for their children.
Wakefield’s findings made him look, to some, like a hero. Unfortunately for Wakefield and his reputation, no other reputable study has found the same correlation between the vaccine and autism. Last month, the British Medical Journal published its own findings, and asserted that Wakefield had falsified data to support his hypothesis. If the data was indeed falsified or used in a selective manner that lacked scientific and ethical integrity, then Wakefield is guilty not only of bad science but also of public endangerment.
In the years since Wakefield’s claim, others have taken his message to heart and spread it further. Almost like a rumor in high school, advocates and celebrities — public figures who believed it to be true — discussed it with almost anyone who would listen. Since 2000, measles and mumps outbreaks have been reported in western countries that had been well equipped to stave off infection through the use of the MMR vaccine. In July 2007, among other occasions, an outbreak of measles in the UK led to some fatalities. Vaccination rates in some parts of the UK dropped to 70 percent, well below previous rates of 85 percent and higher, causing unnecessary exposure to the risk of disease. The ramifications of Wakefield’s study may have also crossed the Atlantic. Just last year, the American Association of Family Physicians reported an outbreak of the mumps in New York and New Jersey.
While it is entirely possible or even likely that Wakefield truly believed, or believes still, in the correlation between the vaccine and autism, no circumstance can justify the compromise of research ethics and integrity to prove a hypothesis. The general public must be able to trust every facet of a study to believe its conclusions; any amount of dishonesty calls all results into question.
Though Wakefield’s research may be rightly criticized, the multiple journals and studies that have refuted his claims through honest and thorough research should be commended. They deserve praise not only for disagreeing with Wakefield’s results, but also for thoroughly retesting his data and independently concluding that his study was flawed. The process of peer review is the best defense for misleading or incomplete research. The scientific community owes the public (which, in many cases, is its source for funding) integrity and ethical behavior in its own studies — and the scrupulous process of reviewing and questioning studies such as Wakefield’s that have ramifications to the health and well-being of society. Anything less is not science, but opinion.
Greg Shipman is a graduate student at Rice University studying subsurface geoscience. He is on the professional science master’s track in the School of Natural Sciences and a student of Kirstin Matthews, Baker Institute fellow in science and technology policy.