*Lancet*ing aboil
Blinding us with science journals
A competitive university culture that discourages the sharing of knowledge has led to the publication of many flawed and fraudulent studies
By Peter McKnight, Vancouver Sun May 5, 2012
On Feb. 6, 2010, the prestigious medical journal the Lancet published one of the most anticipated papers in its 187-year history. Yet the paper was not a medical study, and provided no new medical information. Rather, the paper retracted a previously published paper - specifically, the now infamous 1998 study in which former British surgeon Andrew Wake-field proposed, using falsified data, the existence of a link between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.
Amazingly, the Lancet took 12 years to publish the retraction, even though it became known, within the first few years after publication, that other researchers could not reproduce Wakefield's results.
Indeed, the retraction was only published after the British General Medical Council found Wakefield guilty of three dozen charges, including dishonesty and abusing developmentally disabled children for research purposes, and revoked his licence to practice medicine. And the GMC's hearing only occurred after Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer completed an investigation into Wakefield's fraudulent activities.
Hence, it took an investigative reporter to bring to light one of the biggest scientific scandals in recent memory, a scandal that placed disabled children in jeopardy and that fuelled - and continues to fuel - the anti-science, anti-vaccination movement. This suggests that something is seriously wrong, not just with those who oppose science, but with science itself.
Glenn Begley appears to agree with this sentiment, even though he doesn't discuss the Wakefield debacle. Rather, Begley, the former vice-president of biopharmaceutical company Amgen, outlined, in a recent Nature article, serious problems with the scientific enterprise ...
Published online 23 February 2004 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news040223-1
News
Link between vaccine and autism "entirely flawed"
Medical journal says it regrets publishing Wakefield's research on MMR.
The MMR vaccine has protected millions of children from life-threatening diseases.© SPLA series of allegations have been brought against Andrew Wakefield, the physician whose research and press statements first brought into the public eye a possible link between the combined measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.
One allegation points out that Wakefield had been given £55,000 (US$103,000) for a legal-aid project to investigate a possible link between MMR and autism, after several parents suspected the vaccine had negatively affected their children. Wakefield did not declare the existence of this project when he published a paper on a similar topic in The Lancet in February 1998.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, says this is in violation of his journal's policy regarding conflict of interest.
In light of this, Horton now says that he would have asked Wakefield to remove the suggestion of a link between the vaccine and autism before the paper was published. "My belief is that that aspect of his work is entirely flawed and this conflict of interest shows how it was flawed," Horton told the BBC...
The UK government's chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, today added his voice to calls for an independent investigation by the General Medical Council into the claims against Wakefield...
Nature 439, 248-249 (19 January 2006) | doi:10.1038/439248b; Published online 18 January 2006
Emma Marris
Faked data keeps spotlight on peer review.
A Norwegian researcher dreamed up the lives and lifestyles of some 900 people — and used them in a study on cancer. Then, last October, Jon Sudbø had his results published in The Lancet...
Comments
Post a Comment