Over the last few days I’ve been thinking about the implications of the formal retraction which the Lancet has made of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. This, of course, was the notorious study entitled ‘Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.’
The science of the paper has always been noted to have been questionable, given the tiny numbers and study design; it was the press conference to launch the paper which started the media frenzy over MMR and autism. The paper was partially retracted in 2004, by 10 of the 12 authors involved. It is Wakefield’s appearance at the General Medical Council which seems to have spurred the Lancet into making the retraction final.
And yes, it would seem right that the paper is consigned to the dustbin. However, the reality is that there are acres of poor science being published in the medical literature every day. Either we need to get better at pre-publication peer review (various studies suggest we are poor at it) or we need to accept that publication of research is a beginning of a debate, not the end of it. And start retracting more papers earlier rather than later.
Margaret McCartney
Clive Cookson
Andrew Jack