Are We Wrong About Everything?

Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

To many, this question is, on its face, ridiculous. For the rest, common sense and intuition tell us that there is likely no correlation between the two. Enter the 1998 Wakefield Lancet Study. (1)

The Wakefield Study “identified” a strong correlation between children receiving the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and developing autism. The study not only passed the Lancet’s peer review process but was also published in 1998 before being taken down in 2010. For some context, the Lancet is one of the pre-eminent peer-reviewed medical journals out there with an impact factor over 200 (as of 2021) which indicates that articles in the journal are very often cited in other texts.

So what were some issues with the study? For starters, the researchers in the study surveyed twelve children to develop their conclusions. Anyone who has read science research before has likely noticed the number of subjects or samples necessary to make a strong conclusion; this number is generally in the hundreds or even thousands, yet the Wakefield researchers only sampled twelve. In fact, these participants were not even chosen randomly, as the researchers chose children who had recently received the MMR vaccine and who were also showing early signs of developmental stagnation. The fact that only 12 children, chosen specifically because of symptoms they showed, were selected for the study is laughable. However, the study itself was partially funded by lawyers who were at the time engaged in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.

You are probably wondering how this study ever got published, especially in one of the most prestigious medical journals there is. This study not only reduced trust in the scientific community but it turned thousands of people against the MMR vaccine and vaccination in general. It was also likely one of the many reasons why people did not want to be vaccinated during the COVID pandemic (if you saw articles about whether or not the COVID vaccine causes autism in the past few years, the Wakefield study was almost definitely the cause of dispute).

Let me be clear. I am not against science in any way, shape, or form. I personally believe that science, particularly medical science, is crucial to societal progress (a topic for another time) and preserving the health of individuals and communities. However, I do think that integrating science into our lives involves recognizing science as what it is and adjusting our perceptions about science.

Tying it together, how does the Wakefield Lancet study inform our perceptions about science? Well, science is an argument. The methods used, the ways in which data are organized and presented to viewers, and the conclusions derived from the data are all part of a larger story. Now, this story is not necessarily a fallacy but merely an aspect or means of bringing us closer to the truth.

I remember looking at a graph like this a few weeks ago showing the “asymptote of truth” - the idea that as time progresses, science research brings us closer and closer to the truth which is always just beyond our reach.

However, we all make assumptions that affect our view of the world; in the case of medical research, these assumptions may affect results that are then cited by other researchers or used to make legislative and health-related decisions. What would have happened if, looking at the results of the Wakefield Lancet study, US politicians had banned the MMR vaccine from being produced and administered? Would measles, mumps, and rubella become common illnesses once again? How many would be infected and possibly die?

We often make decisions based on research we see without realizing that that research may not be entirely neutral. I recently took a seminar course at UNC Chapel Hill titled “Science for the Hyperpartisan Times” (IDST 132) which was led by three professors: one in the field of History, one in the field of Rhetoric, and one in the field of Public Policy. In this course, the Public Policy Professor, experienced in science research advocacy at the state level, argued that researchers often provide short briefs to policymakers that will then sway the legislator’s opinion on an issue. If policy makers are receiving data from other analysts, we must now rely on them to reduce their bias as much as possible and to ensure the data they cite is of high quality.

So, after reading this it appears I’ve given you lots of bad news. But reflecting upon what I’ve said so far, how can we trust the decisions made by legislators relating to our health? Well, of course no one has come to a consensus on that answer or health policy would be away from the political spotlight. From my perspective, there is both good and bad news.

First and foremost, we must find strategies to improve science transparency and accountability, while holding legislators responsible when they make decisions using faulty data. Looking back at the Wakefield study one last time, it is easy to poke holes in science that seems clearly and obviously skewed. However, with over 2 million articles published in peer reviewed journals every year, it becomes impossible to ensure that every lab is performing science responsibly. One possible solution to this issue involves making science research more accessible so that it can be read and understood by more people. However this does not entirely solve the problem.

In 2012, the American biotechnology firm Amgen attempted reproducing 53 highly-cited studies in the fields oncology and hematology. Surprisingly, the firm could only replicate 6. (2) How many highly-cited studies are out there whose results are the product of coincidence or manipulation? To solve this growing “replication crisis,” we might try to bring policymakers into the loop, ensuring that science cited in legislative decisions is high quality. Here, we might have a solution that might end this debate once and for all. The North Carolina Policy Collaboratory brings in research from all 17 schools of the UNC System to inform policy decisions. (3) Members of the Collaboratory do not produce science research but they do inform where funding is allocated. This way, scientists and policymakers can collaborate to decide on what research is produced and how science is used in society.

Medical research has the potential to transform lives around the world. Think about the technology you see when you enter a hospital, the product of innumerable scientific advancements. However, science is an algorithm that amplifies our own biases from faulty study designs to one-sided data. To ensure we are not using bad science to inform health policy, we must not only increase science accessibility and transparency but also bring legislators into the loop. Science communication is an ongoing process that requires collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and the public. By building bridges and fostering a better understanding of scientific research, we can ensure that our policies are based on sound evidence and lead to a brighter future for all.