Dr. Wakefields Research & Role Played by Media - Essay Example

Dr. Wakefield’s Research & Role played by Media ID MMR Controversy has been d as one of the most damaging frauds in the history of medical sciences in the last century. The controversy involves presentation of false facts and manipulated medical research by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his co-researchers on the subject of relation between onset of autism and use of vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella. The study is considered to have reduced rates of vaccination received worldwide tremendously and resulting in emergence of epidemics in different parts of the world. Another critical factor behind the success and acclamation of this research is the role played by media in getting his research socially accepted in the masses. It is argued that media gave undue coverage to Dr. Wakefield’s research and his research vetted by a well-acclaimed peer-reviewed journal enhanced the damages that could have been caused by this study otherwise. It was also found that political pressures and several conflicts of interests along with ethical conditions remained unaddressed and unnoticed during the research. Where Dr. Wakefield can be accused of being unprofessional according to medical codes of conducts, media is required to be blamed equally for causing a damage that has endangered the wellbeing of children worldwide. Dr. Wakefield’s research employed rigorous tools and methodologies for which no proper ethical approval was obtained for invasive procedures on children (Emanuel, Abdoler and Stunkel, 2008). On the other hand, it was found that Dr. Wakefield had exchanged funds with the lawyers of children’s parents that were made part of the research. The research further employed references of other studies that were conducted by either the coauthors of the same research or his friends (Holton, Weberling, Clarke and Smith, 2012). Where autism is a disorder for which little information is present regarding its causative agents and cures, a theory supporting the idea that it is caused by MMR vaccination made many parents believe that prevention from vaccination can benefit their child despite having contradictory evidences in the rates of epidemiological increases after this research. The research was later on criticized by other independent studies which raised questions on the effectiveness of Dr. Wakefield’s work. Presence of a reputable medical journal The Lancet and other media bodies providing coverage to this research further aggravated the situation. Medical journal are usually used by medical practitioners, researchers and educationists in the same field. However, vetting of Dr. Wakefield’s article by a medical journal allowed journalists and other media channels to disseminate information to local people. As a result, parents refused to provide vaccination to their children in large parts of the world with reported epidemics in UK, US, Austria, Italy and Switzerland (Smith, Ellenberg, Bell, and Rubin, 2008). It is further important to note that where vaccination is a prevention strategy, it is relatively less costly as compared to actual treatment for the diseases (Anderberg, Chevalier and Wadsworth, 2008). Failure to incur such expenses by government and parents due to limited insurance coverage and Medicare facilities increases the risks of affecting a child’s wellbeing. Dr. Wakefield’s research was contested in the last few years and part of it was retracted in 2004 with more than half of the authors withdrawing their interpretations from the research. This retraction was followed by a rigorous investigation by medical authorities, license seizure of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and retraction of the whole research in 2010. There were quite a few studies that provided evidences contradictory to the findings of Wakefield’s research (Miller and Reynonds, 2009). A research conducted by Stefano and Chen (2001, 831) asserted that although the percentage of reported autism onsets has increased greatly in the children as the percentage of vaccination coverage increases however it is difficult to identify if this is an actual increase or the result of increased recognition and changes in diagnostic criteria. However, studies like the one mentioned before were not given sufficient coverage on media. Where Dr. Wakefield’s work has caused damage to many, question arises if the extent of damage would be so great if media bodies had not provided him excessive coverage. Presence of medical research ethics ensure that research is being conducted in a manner that does not cause harm to any of the subjects involved and methods employed are just, fair and appropriate for the purpose of the research. Secondly, the research remains unbiased and does not benefit any particular party specifically. Any undue influence on the subjects by the researchers is also expected to be reported if present. These guidelines act as criteria for reliability and validity of a research. When a study is peer-reviewed and published on the forum of an acclaimed medical body, its credibility enhances which makes society and general reader to trust it (Trachtenberg, Dugan, and Hall, 2005). However, such trust also makes society vulnerable to ills that can be associated with a faulty research. Same has been portrayed in MMR vaccination issue. It is evident that presence of reputable medical practitioners and their support by renowned medical bodies increased the credibility of the research and it remained reliable for general public for a long time despite having contradictory studies in the same area (Jacobs, 2004). It is important to note that society is more vulnerable when the research concerns areas having limited medical evidences. In the selected research, autism was the disorder discussed which is already a grey area due to limited knowledge about what causes it and how to increase the cognitive functioning of the individuals suffering from it. Therefore, the general readers were likely to accept what they read assuming that all the medical ethical considerations have been taken care of (Morris, 2012). According to Makgoba (2002), the political influences and media in coverage of scientific researchers greatly affect the reliability of the research and public’s opinion about it. The research asserts that where public has a right to be aware of medical studies that can benefit them and take informed measures; false dissemination of information goes unnoticed due to absence of governing bodies in the given area. The same notion is supported by the research of Dr. Ben Goldacre (2009) as he asserts that media is one of the major sources of misunderstanding in general public regarding health and science. False claims by journalists, lobbying by media forces to support the cause of any particular person (intentional and unintentional) and absence of excessive information that general public is not equipped to understand are some of the areas that have negative impacts of general public (Kensicki, 2004; Lewis and Speers, 2003). Research conducted by Holton et al. (2012) investigated how media played a role and contributed in MMR hoax. The research examined how the events regarding the research were investigated, portrayed and framed by the media along with different provocative strategies employed that convinced the readers regarding injurious impacts of MMR. A dominant theme identified in this framing was replacement of a possible link between autism and MMR by a direct causing nature. With MMR being addressed as the confirmed cause behind autism instead of a possible one, media failed to provide parents with any possible guidelines regarding how to respond to this investigation (Offit and Coffin, 2006). As far as responsibility of media is concerned, media also bears liability of rectifying the earlier false imaging of vaccines (Franzen, Rodder and Weingart, 2007). Along with that, it is important that media projects a need for aggressive societal measures instead of individual efforts for combating epidemics. Another important aspect of studies conducted on role of media in MMR controversy was a specific framing that had more preference to parents’ opinions and general public’s perception than informed, scientific analysts. Boyce (2007) further mentioned that most of content shown on print and electronic media used political statements and fears of general public instead of medical experts. Hangreaves, Lewis and Speers (2003, 52) assert that consistency of information over a particular subject in journalism can be interpreted as evidence itself by general public. Furthermore, most of scientific sources used and referenced were somehow engaged with individuals having autistic conditions thus making their interpretation highly biased. Furthermore, presence of government officials in the stories also added to their acceptance level in general public. Similarly, in case of MMR controversy, presence of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair created a perception that government accepts the risks posed by MMR vaccination. Tony Blair when asked about vaccinating his infant son answered that this is family’s private matter. News interpreters mentioned that if Blair had used vaccines for his son, there would be have been an affirmative answer which gave rise to a suspicion that Blair although promoting MMR in public was refraining from it in private life. Hilton, Pettrick and Hunt (2007, 42) also provide an account of impacts of politics and politicians on general perception of public regarding scientific findings by stating, “Despite the Government acting quickly to reassure parents about MMR safety following the publication of the 1998 paper by Wakefield and colleagues, MMR uptake declined. One of the reasons suggested for this decline is a loss of public trust in politicians and health professionals.” Their research used samples of parents in the period of 2002 and 2003 and identified that parents find it hard to identify the correct source of information with politicians being the untrustworthy ones when it comes to public health. In addition to that, General Practitioners also use practices which make them demonstrate higher percentage of immunization due to incentives provided by government in UK. Such financial incentives also make GPs an untrustworthy source of information. It is important to understand that even medical practitioners may not always act as a source of credible information. Presence of peer review acts as a criteria of scientific reinvestigation. However, peer reviews are subjected to discretion of editors and other experts making this process highly subjective. Same is the case with source of funding and research conclusions. Failure to mention any source of funding can have a significant impact on its peer-review and Dr. Wakefield failed to mention funds received my Legal Aid Board which when identified later jeopardized the reliability of the research. A subsequent result of the publications made by these newspapers was a significant increase in parents opting for MMR non-receipts. Research conducted by Smith, Ellenberg, Bell and Rubin (2008) examined the receipts of MMR in the period of 1995 to 2004 and identified that media had a significant impact on changing the views of parents on the subject of MMR. A critical analysis of course of events taken place in MMR controversy and their correlation with the activities of media and possible decrease in vaccination receipt indicated that the phenomenon of science by press conference is very much valid (Kalichman, 2009). Implications of unnecessary media coverage regarding scientific research provide general public with irrelevant and complex information corroborated with convincing evidences. In the given case, publication of Dr. Wakefield’s research in the peer-reviewed journal increased its credibility which made the readers assume that an independent review has been conducted already making the research applicable on general mass. Moore (2006) argues that there needs to be an accountability mechanism in media bodies as well that can hold journalism accountable for providing bias information or creating a distorted perception based on incomplete information. Failure to do so can have significant impacts on society. MMR controversy has been one of the major medical setbacks that have affected the lives of millions all around the globe. With research based on incomplete and manipulated data, research findings supported the notion that there is a link between MMR vaccination receipt and onset of autism. Where authors of the research failed to indicate any conflicts of interest affecting credibility of their research, subsequent findings of this breach of medical code of conduct after almost six years resulted not only in retraction of research but also license seizure of main author Dr. Wakefield. Although medicine is an honest profession however role of media and politics in aggravating the given situation cannot be undermined. Continuous and biased coverage of this research was followed by a considerable decrease in vaccination receipt and an onset of epidemics on different parts of the world. It was found that media used sources that did not had medical expertise to comment on such sensitive issue and presence of public opinion in such coverage created mistrust on government policies concerning vaccination. It can be concluded that media needs to be held accountable when providing a scientific findings to the general public. References Anderberg, D., Chevalier, A. and Wadsworth, J. 2008. Anatomy of a Health Scare: Education, Income and the MMR Controversy in the UK. [online] Available at: http://ftp.iza.org/dp3590.pdf [Accessed 22 July, 2013]. Boyce, T., 2007. Health, risk and news: The MMR vaccine and the media. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. DeStefano, F. and Chen, R.T., 2001. Autism and measles-mumps-rubella vaccination: controversy laid to rest? CNS Drugs, 15(11), pp. 831-7. Emanuel, E., Abdoler, E. and Stunkel, L., 2008. Research Ethics: How to treat people who are in research, [online] Available at: http://www.bioethics.nih.gov/education/FNIH_BioethicsBrochure_WEB.PDF [Accessed 22 July, 2013]. Franzen, M., Rodder, S., and Weingart, P., 2007. Fraud: Causes and culprits as perceived by science and the media. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 8, pp. 3-7. Goldacre, B., 2009. Bad Science. London: Fourth Estate. Holton, A., Weberling, B. Clarke, C. and Smith, M., 2012. The blame frame: Media Attribution of Culpability about the MMR-Autism Vaccination Scare, Health Communication, pp. 1-12. Hargreaves, I., Lewis, J. and Speers, T., 2011. Towards a better map: Science, the public and the media. Economic and Social Research Council Report, 22-54. Hilton, S., Petticrew, M. and Hunt, K., 2007. Parents champions vs. vested interests: Who do parents believe about MMR?. A qualitative study, BMC Public Health, 7, 42. Jacobs, A.K., 2004. Rebuilding an Enduring Trust in Medicine: A Global Mandate: Presidential Address American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2004. American Heart Association Circulation, 105, 166277. Kalichman, S.C., 2009. Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy. Springer Publications. Kensicki, L. J., 2004. No cure for what ails us: The media-constructed disconnect between societal problems and possible solutions. Journalism& Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 53–73. Lewis, J. and Speers, T., 2003. Misleading media reporting? The MMR story. Nature Reviews Immunology, 3, 913-918. Makgoba, M.W., 2002. Politics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience. Vaccines,20, 1899-1904. Miller, L., and Reynonds, J., 2009. Autism and vaccination- The current evidence. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing,14, 166–172. Morris, G., 2012. Mental health issues and the media: An introduction for Health Professionals, Routledge. Moore, A., 2006. Bad Science in the Headlines. EMBO Reports, 7, 1193-1196. Offit, P.A. and Coffin, S.E., 2006. Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine, 22, 1-6. Smith, M.J., Ellenberg, S., Bell, L.M and Rubin, D.M. 2008., Media Coverage of the Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autism Controversy and Its Relationship to MMR Immunization Rates in the United States, Pediatrics, 121(4), 836-843. Trachtenberg, F., Dugan, E. and Hall M.A., 2005. How patients trust relates to their involvement in medical care. Journal of Family Practice, 54(4), 344-352. Read More