In many corners of the world of academia, Andrew Wakefield is a household name synonymous with bad experimental design and the consequence of faulty research. But what exactly did he do to earn such ire? Wakefield and his colleagues published a study in the prestigious scientific journal The Lancet that ultimately concluded a positive correlation between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccines and autism. Many papers have been authored that have documented and refuted these claims, pointing out large fallacies in the way the generalized conclusion was derived from an inherently flawed sample of just 12 children. After all, he neglected to test children without developmental disorders, and none of the children with these developmental disorders failed to receive the vaccine to serve as controls. Epidemiological studies have found no causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism, completely shutting down the Wakefield paper. The debacle only devolved further after Wakefield disclosed conflicting financial interests, having been funded by lawyers involved in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies. Even though they were exonerated of ethical misconduct, Wakefield et al were found guilty of fraud; they selectively chose to publish data for financial gain. This, if anything, justifies the doubt and skepticism directed at Wakefield.
The most frightening aspect of the Wakefield story, though, lies not in his questionably motivated science, but rather the lasting impact that his falsified research had on the general public. Despite the mountain of evidence supporting the safety of vaccines, concerns and resultant hesitations towards vaccinations have increased the general population’s risk of contracting measles and mumps. It’s amazing how even after being presented with hard facts, some people cling to the set of data that merely reaffirms their existing beliefs. In fact, it has been reported that lack of vaccination due to vaccine hesitancy is not only a risk factor for mumps outbreaks, but such persons have also been the source patient for many recent US outbreaks. So not only has the scourge of anti-vaccine individuals caused increased illness amongst themselves, but the entire nation is also put in danger due to their negligence.
Another point of interest to consider regarding the downstream effects of the Wakefield paper is how reputation plays a role in the scientific community. Wakefield serves as an excellent example of the nuances of status in academia. Firstly, regardless of how much his peers contributed to the paper, Andrew Wakefield is the name that everyone knows, not Murch or Linnell. Having the position of first author on a paper not only confers all glory associated with that paper, but also all disdain. It is also intriguing to note how such a flawed paper managed to bypass the multitude of reviewers that maintain the respectability of a prominent scientific journal such as The Lancet. It brings into question just how much faulty science could be out there in lesser known journals. This is particularly concerning as, often times, such small papers can easily be referenced, and the foundation of any future papers that do as such can be completely undermined. Luckily, the Wakefield paper was scrutinized early on and the scientific community has consequently shown that Andrew Wakefield was, in fact, not the most woke in his field.
Is Cereal a Soup 