Genuine science and pseudoscience
Genuine science is systematized knowledge that is derived from research, observation, and experimentation and is governed by the values of cooperation, the integrity of knowledge, objectivity, honesty, and openness (Lombrozo). Many projects, however, that lack the fundamental elements of science have masqueraded as ones to advance preset social, economic, and political aims (Flaherty 1303). Pseudoscience is produced when these fields attempt to replicate the veracity of science but fall short of recognized standards of practice and authenticity (1302).The Wakefield study and its claims
The Wakefield study, which asserts that MMR vaccination causes autism (regressive developmental disorder) in children, is one of the pseudosciences mentioned in this essay. The study struggles to link Rubella, Mumps, and Measles vaccination to autism (Rao 95). Even though the study is a clear violation of scientific principles of research, it provides a reason why people should be skeptical about any study until concrete evidence is available. Factors that strongly link to autism include maternal infection during pregnancy and birth complications involving oxygen deprivation (Szatmari 173).Pseudoscientific Topic: MMR Vaccination Leads to Autism
In 1998, Wakefield and 12 of his associates published a case series in the Lancet suggesting that rubella, measles as well as mumps vaccines may predispose children to autism (Wakefield 637). The researchers were investigating children with regressive development disorders and chronic enterocolitis. Twelve children of ages between three and ten participated in the study. Further, they underwent neurological, gastroenterological, and developmental assessment. Other procedures included biopsy sampling, illeoconlonoscopy, electroencephalography, magnetic resonance, lumbar puncture, and immunological as well as hematological profiles. According to the study, children with MMR vaccination are susceptible to developing autism (Wakefield 637).Why is the paper by Wakefield based on pseudoscience hence view it skeptically?
There was an apparent scientific misconduct as well as ethical violations by Wakefield and his colleagues (Flaherty 1304). The study conducted an invasive investigation of the research subject without obtaining relevant ethical clearance (Rao 95). Some of the procedures included the lumbar puncture, biopsy sampling, and magnetic resonance imaging (Wakefield 637). Moreover, Wakefield willfully misrepresented facts willfully by reporting that the samples were consecutive yet they were selective (Flaherty 1303). Immediately after people started to question the validity of the investigation, the author and co-author retracted the paper (Godlee 64). At some point, the co-authors contradicted their initial assertion and stated that there was no association between autism and MMR vaccine (Rao 95). Hence, there is a need to view the article skeptically and cautiously.Issues with operational definitions and research design
Wakefield failed to make accurate use of operational definitions of variables so that persons other than the researcher can test them independently (Flaherty 1304). For instance, the term "behavioral symptoms" is not defined in the research context. Furthermore, Wakefield used references to disintegrative disorder and regressive autism interchangeably although the two conditions differ (Rao 95). Disintegrative disorder (CDD) is characterized by the onset of developmental delays in social function, language, and motor skills; regressive autism leads to the loss of social skills as well as language previously held by an individual (Szatmari 173).Furthermore, the research design utilized in the study did not integrate components of the study coherently and logically; hence, doubts to the conclusions made (Taylor 2026). For instance, there were flaws in the research since Wakefield did not incorporate a control group, meaning that the study findings and recommendations could be causal or coincidental but there was no evidence for either (2027). Pseudoscience relies profoundly on subjective validation for its continued existence (Flaherty 1304). In genuine science, no one in the study should know what the results should be until they are tabulated finally (Rao 96). However, in the study by Wakefield, most subjects were conveniently selected to show a particular causal relation (Taylor 2029). There was no application of double-blind control protocol. Apart from using free design, the sample size used was twelve subjects. Therefore, the sample size was not large enough to accurately replicate the findings to the general population (Rao 96).Viewing Wakefield's paper skeptically and the lack of boundary conditions
Thus, one should view the paper by Wakefield more keenly since it lacks boundary conditions (Godlee 64). Nonpseudoscientific papers pose articulated limitation that forms the basis on which anticipated phenomena do or do not apply (Flaherty 1304). Recognizing limitations is fundamental in interpreting the validity, ascribing a credibility level to the conclusions, and placing research findings in context. However, the study by Wakefield did not elaborate on the limitations of the study (Rao 95). Acknowledging limitations needs an interpretation of the influence and meaning of validity and errors on research reports.Promoting fraud and lack of logical possibilities
Pseudoscience uses fraud to advance a particular social, political, or economic interest (Godlee 66). By falsifying facts and choosing data to suit their circumstances, Wakefield and co-authors deliberately participated in scientific fraud (Flaherty 1302). To make matters worse, Wakefield altered the medical histories of all the twelve respondents whose cases molded the basis of the research (Godlee 66). Godlee further claims that Wakefield got paid by a law firm that wanted to settle scores through litigation by vaccine manufacturers (66). Hence, most likely, Wakefield's research was guided by financial gains rather than lucidity.The research by Wakefield overlies on confirmation rather than refutation, leading to a speculative conclusion (Godlee 64). Wakefield makes assertions that do not permit logical possibilities. However, a temporary link between MMR and autism may exist since both happenings, by definition or design, occur in childhood (Rao 95). Of the twelve subjects which Wakefield examined, five presented developmental challenges before receiving the MMR vaccines, and three of them never had autism (Rao 95). In presenting study findings, Wakefield and co-authors give the mean time to onset of the first behavioral symptoms as 6.3 days (Wakefield 639). Wakefield uses the average duration from parental recollections as fact in findings, results, tables, interpretation, and statistical analysis. Using such information increased errors in the research since parents may not recollect the information accurately, especially after several years have elapsed, casting doubt on the study's findings as well as the conclusion.Lack of progress, self-correction, and disapproval of claims
The study by Wakefield depicted the absence of progress as evident in legitimate scientific studies (Flaherty 1303). By predetermining the conclusion of the research before commencing the study, Wakefield failed to progress towards additional evidence of the research claim. Moreover, the study lacked self-correction since after its publication; thus, it was retracted and remained unchanged despite the contradictory evidence (Rao 96). Additionally, the statistical significance of supporting the results did not improve over time (Godlee). Usually, experimental techniques are improved or repeated thus giving stronger evidence (Rao 95). Hence, subsequent researchers disapproved the claim that MMR causes autism in children.Causes of autism and the impact of Wakefield's paper
If MMR vaccine does not cause autism, then what causes it? Although neurological problems may trigger autism, the relationship remains unclear. As such, the claim that primary neurological disorders lead to autism is not empirical (Szatmari 173). However, damage to nerves during whole-cell vaccination (DPT) has a bearing on subsequently diagnosed autism (173). Other factors that have strong links to autism include maternal infection during pregnancy (such as rubella) as well as birth complications involving oxygen deprivation (174). Despite the paper by Wakefield being pseudoscience, it proved that fraud is possible even when it comes to science. As such, the claims in the journal shaped the public view of the safety of vaccines as well as the link between MMR and autism (Rao 96).Conclusion
Any scientist who publishes research has a moral responsibility to uphold the absolute values and standards in data analysis, collection, reporting as well as elucidation of study outcomes (Godlee 66). There should be no compromise since any trickery can lead to injury to persons or damage to the principles of science. In 1998, Wakefield presented a case series suggesting that measles, rubella, and mumps vaccines predispose children to autism. Subsequent studies disapproved the claims presented by Wakefield and his co-authors, labeling them as pseudoscience. Additionally, there are a few reasons why the paper by Wakefield is pseudoscience. First of all, it exaggerates claims lacks logic; second, it promotes fraud; finally, the paper over-relies on confirmation rather than refutation. Hence, people should view the paper by Wakefield more keenly since it contradicts scientific research principles. Nonetheless, it provides a reason why people should be skeptical about any study until concrete evidence is available. Factors that strongly link to autism include maternal infection during pregnancy and birth complications involving oxygen deprivation (Szatmari 173).Works Cited
Godlee, Fiona. “Wakefield’s Article Linking MMR Vaccine and Autism Was Fraudulent.” British Medical Journal, vol. 342, No. 7788 (8 Jan 2011): 64-66.
Flaherty, Dennis K. “The Vaccine-Autism Connection: A Public Health Crisis Caused by Unethical Medical Practices and Fraudulent Science.” Sage Journals vol. 45, no. 10, (2011): 1302-1304.
Lombrozo, Tania. “What Is Pseudoscience?” Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/05/08/527354190/what-is-pseudoscience
Rao, Sathyanarayana T.S. and Chittaranjan Andrade. “The MMR Vaccine and Autism: Sensation, Refutation, Retraction, and Fraud.” Indian Journal of Psychiatry 53.2 (2011): 95-96. PMC.
Szatmari, Peter. “The Causes of Autism Spectrum Disorders.” British Medical Journal, vol. 326, No. 7382, 25 Jan. 2003 (2003): 173-174 PubMed, doi:10.1136/bmj.326/bmj.326.7382.173.
Taylor, Brent. “Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.” The Lancet, vol. 353, no. 9169 (12 June 1999): 2026–2029. ScienceDirect.
Wakefield, Andrew, J. “RETRACTED: Ileal-Lymphoid-Nodular Hyperplasia, Non-Specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children.” The Lancet, vol. 351, no. 9103, .” The Lancet, vol. 351, no. 9103 (28 Feb. 1998): 637–641 ScienceDirect.
