The impact of bad science
23.05.13
Medical science has allowed for advancements that improve patient health and well-being around the world – vaccines and cures are now available for a number of diseases once considered common killers, from polio to typhoid. The science of medicine can also pose a threat however, if the data it generates is distorted or misused. The outbreak of Measles centred in Swansea, Wales is a clear example of this, and a reminder that when it comes to how we handle scientific data, caution is key.
“This is the legacy of the Wakefield scare,” Dr. David Elliman, spokesman for the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, told the Associated Press, referring to a 1998 paper published by Andrew Wakefield, which suggested a link between measles vaccination and autism. This research – and Wakefield himself – has since been discredited. At the time, however, Wakefield’s claims received significant attention, with U.K. media running away with the story. In a recent FT article critiquing media’s role in contributing to vaccine scares, Ben Goldacre notes the “aggressive anti-MMR campaign covered by the South Wales Evening Post” and points to the consequences: “Published academic research has shown that the MMR vaccine uptake in this one newspaper’s distribution area dropped 13 per cent, while coverage in the rest of Wales fell only 2 per cent”.
The impact of Wakefield’s bad science is being felt now, years later, both in terms of patient health and healthcare costs. The U.K. measles vaccine scare is a reminder of how careful we need to be with scientific data, particularly in healthcare. This topic is especially relevant in my industry at the moment, as we continue to discuss increased openness of clinical trials data. There is no doubt that changes must be made; I won’t argue on that point. In my view, it is not a question of if but how to implement change: Indeterminate availability of full data sets can be dangerous if this data falls into the wrong hands, while common standards need to be established for data’s re- and meta-analysis to ensure that data is not misused.
The scientific data generated by clinical trials is invaluable in helping to develop new and improved treatments for patient well-being. However it is essential to recognise the impact – bad as well as good – that this data can have. Science is a powerful tool, usually for the better but sometimes for the worse. It’s difficult to know which scientific discovery will change the world. Scientific data in all fields and at any level therefore demands a respectful, cautionary approach.
