This week you will discuss either the Immunization study or the Stanford Prison study. You will tell your fellow classmates about the harm caused by the study, and what you think could have been done by the scientists, the media, and the public to avoid or fix the harms caused.
This week I read the article about the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism – more precisely, about the fact that such data was fabricated and there is no such connection. During my life, I have heard many times from various young parents that mandatory vaccination exposes their children to a high risk of developing various diseases and autism. I also heard that the chance of such an outcome is extremely low, but for the first time, I came across an article revealing where such rumors originally came from.
To tell the story short, in 1998 The Lancet medical journal published an article claiming that the MMR vaccine may cause developmental disorders and behavioral regression (Rao & Andrade, 2011, para 1). This study caused a lot of harm to society because many parents became scared of vaccinating their children. For example, In England and Wales the rate of MMR vaccination fell by almost 10% in the period from 1996 to 2002 – no wonder it led to a much higher number of measles cases (Encyclopedia of the Environment, n.d., para 6).
Taking care of our health and the well-being of our loved ones is normal behavior for any person. I believe that such a reaction of parents and diligent avoidance of vaccination was the result of an emotional reaction to information that was not even sufficiently substantiated and verified. First, The Lancet journal should have required the authors of the article to provide more detailed information on the problem, including the specific sample size. For example, 8 out of 12, can also be interpreted as 80 out of 120, 800 out of 1200, or 2/3. The statement, that 8 out of 12 children had issues after being vaccinated, immediately causes a negative emotional reaction and does not make you think that for such studies, a sample of 12 people is negligible and even suspicious. What was the initial sample size? Was it 12 or it was just a way to say ⅔? As for me, it is even weird that the editor of The Lancet hasn’t noticed that before publishing the article.
Second, scientists should be more responsible for what they write and publish. Every scientific research and article should be based on thoroughly studied data with clear numbers. They should also provide a good analysis of their main ideas and try to avoid any minor errors and misunderstandings.
Finally, the public should thoughtfully read articles of this kind and not act rashly. Important decisions, such as whether to vaccinate a child or not, should be made not emotionally, but consciously. Even if after reading an article or watching the news on TV, a person piously believes in something, he or she still needs to study this topic in more depth. In order to avoid the effect when we find confirmation of what we believe in, and in order to evaluate the issue more intelligently, it is always worth studying another point of view, checking what evidence of a particular statement exists, and what data and figures they are supported by.
References
Rao S., Andrade C. (April-June, 2011). The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136032/ Encyclopedia of the Environment. (n.d.). A scientific fraud with tragic consequences: The MMR vaccine and autism. Retrieved from https://www.encyclopedie-environnement.org/en/zoom/a-scientific-fraud-with-tragic-consequences-the-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/