In the news: Andrew Wakefield

February 27, 2004

Andrew Wakefield is back in the news after being accused of concealing a potential conflict of interest in his 1998 study purporting to link the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism and bowel cancer.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet , this week said he would not have published the paper had he known that Dr Wakefield was being paid for a study looking for evidence to support legal action by parents who thought their children had been damaged by the vaccine.

The General Medical Council is considering whether to take action against Dr Wakefield. Dr Wakefield has insisted on an inquiry.

The original controversy surrounding the study has already cost Dr Wakefield his post at the Royal Free Medical School - he resigned in 2001.

Speaking at the time, he said: "I have been asked to go because my research results are unpopular."

The 46-year-old medic was born into the profession - his mother was a GP and his father a neurologist. He studied medicine at St Mary's Hospital Medical School in London then trained in bowel transplantation at Toronto University, Canada, where he worked as a transplant surgeon.

In the late 1980s, he returned to the UK and published studies that, he suggested, showed a link between measles and Crohn's disease, a form of inflammatory bowel disease. By the mid-1990s, Dr Wakefield started to consider whether there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease.

His study focused on tests carried out on 12 children referred to the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead for gastrointestinal problems. At the same time, Dr Wakefield was paid to carry out another study to find out if parents who claimed their children were damaged by the MMR vaccine had a case. He insists that the two studies were completely separate.

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October