Page | 1

BACKGROUND TO WAKEFIELD/MMR CASE

The Role of Researchers, the Host Research Institution and the Journal That Publishes the
Research in Ensuring Research Integrity

[Writer]

[Institute]

[Date]
 Page | 2

BACKGROUND TO WAKEFIELD/MMR CASE

The Role of Researchers, the Host Research Institution and the Journal That Publishes the
Research in Ensuring Research Integrity

A case series was published by Andrew Wakefield et al. (1998) in the Lancet. According
to their case series, the vaccine known as MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) may affect
children by developing behavioural regression and pervasive developmental disorder in them.
Regardless of the small sample size (n=12) in their research, along with uncontrolled design, and
not quite exact or correct conclusions, much publicity was received by the paper, and the rates of
MMR vaccination started to decline as parents were worried about the autism’s risk following
inoculation (DeStefano and Chen, 1999).

Soon after, studies relating to epidemiology were conducted and published, rebutting the
postulated association between MMR vaccination and autism (DeStefano, 2007). The reason that
the autism may be triggered by MMR was also explored this temporal association is more or less
predestined: both events, by design (MMR vaccine) or definition (autism), occur in the early
period of child’s life.

A short renunciation of the interpretation of the novel data by 10 of the total (12) co-
authors is the next incident. According to the renunciation, there was no any causal relationship
between MMR vaccine and autism because of insufficient data (Flaherty, 2011). An acceptance
by the Lancet that Wakefield et al had failed in disclosing financial interests accompanied this,
such as the lawyers engaged by parents in court cases against vaccine-producing firms had
funded Wakefield. Nevertheless, Wakefield and others were exonerated by the Lancet from
accusations of ethical violations and scientific delinquency (Smith, 2006).

In the start of 2010, Wakefield et al. (1998) paper was absolutely retracted by the Lancet,
accepting numerous aspects in the paper were wrong, against the findings of the previous
investigation. Wakefield et al. (1998) were held guilty for their ethical violations because an
invasive investigation was conducted by them on the children devoid of gaining the necessary
ethical as well as scientific misrepresentation because they reported there was consecutive
sampling but it was selective. This renunciation was published as a small, unnamed paragraph in
the journal, for the editors (Godlee, Smith and Marcovitch, 2011).
 Page | 3

The last event in the saga is the disclosure and charges of intentional fraud were imposed
on Wakefield et al. (1998), as they selected data that was suitable to their case; they distorted
facts. A series of articles have been published by The British Medical Journal on the disclosure
of the deception, which seems to have occurred for financial benefit (Deer, 2011). It is an issue
that the depiction was a consequence of journalistic examination, instead of academic
observation followed by the institution of counteractive measures. The interest of readers may be
in gaining knowledge that Brian Deer, reporter on the Wakefield case, had earlier covered and
revealed the fake implication of thiomersal (in vaccines) in the etiology of autism (Rao and
Andrade, 2011). Nevertheless, his report had not contributed an investigative role (Rao and
Andrade, 2011).

There are some implications. Scientists, researchers and institutions all over the world
spent enough time, effort and wealth rejecting the findings of a trivial paper in the Lancet and
revealing the scientific deception that established the paper’s basis. To an appalling extent, all
parents did not immunize their children because of fear of the autism’s risk, thus putting their
children at the risk of disease and the established complications associated thereto. The non-
vaccination of children was the major reason behind, almost a decade ago, Measles outbreaks in
the UK and pockets of measles in America and Canada (Harrison, 2013). The Wakefield
deception is likely the highly serious frauds in medical history.

There is an ethical responsibility on scientists publishing their research to make sure the
maximum standards of research design, collection of data, analysis of data, and interpretation of
the end results; there can be no excuses and compromises because any mistake, any dishonesty,
can lead to harm to patients. A sincere hope is that research workers and scientists will always
take this ethical responsibility into their consideration while submitting their literary works.
 Page | 4

References

Deer, B., 2011. How the vaccine crisis was meant to make money. Bmj, 342, p.c5258.

DeStefano, F. and Chen, R.T., 1999. Negative association between MMR and autism. The
Lancet, 353(9169), pp.1987-1988.

DeStefano, F., 2007. Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal
association. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 82(6), pp.756-759.

Flaherty, D.K., 2011. The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical
medical practices and fraudulent science. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 45(10), pp.1302-
1304.

Godlee, F., Smith, J. and Marcovitch, H., 2011. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and
autism was fraudulent.

Harrison, J.A., 2013. Wrong about vaccine safety: a review of Andrew Wakefield’s “Callous
Disregard”. Open Vaccine Journal, 6, pp.9-25.

Rao, T.S. and Andrade, C., 2011. The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation,
retraction, and fraud. Indian journal of psychiatry, 53(2), p.95.

Smith, R., 2006. Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well. Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine, 99(5), pp.232-237.

Wakefield, A.J., Murch, S.H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D.M., Malik, M., Berelowitz,
M., Dhillon, A.P., Thomson, M.A., Harvey, P. and Valentine, A., 1998. RETRACTED:
Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental
disorder in children.