A Critical Choice ■ 31conducted by researchers without a conflict of
interest, have shown that the number of vaccines
given from birth to 15 months of age under the
CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule is
safe. Researchers have also found that delaying
the vaccination schedule increases a child’s risk
of contracting a disease.
Today it is clear that the paper that started it
all, Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper, proposed a
claim that is incorrect. All told, it’s OK for science
to be wrong. There is no expectation that every
single one of the thousands of studies published
each year will be correct. Yet in the case of the
Lancet paper, there was bias and wrongdoing.
Years after publication of the paper, it came to
light that Andrew Wakefield had received large
amounts of money as a paid expert for lawyers
who were suing vaccine manufacturers. Wake-
field had also applied for a patent on a vaccine
that would rival the most commonly used MMR
vaccine.
Because of these conf licts of interest, in
2010 the General Medical Council, an orga-
nization that licenses all medical doctors in
the United Kingdom, concluded that Wake-
field’s conduct had been “irresponsible and
dishonest” and revoked his medical license.
Eventually, 10 of the paper’s 11 other authors
retracted their support of the study and its
conclusions. Ultimately, in February of 2010,
the Lancet officially retracted the paper—a
very rare action for publishers (Figure 2.9). A
peer-reviewed paper is retracted (withdrawn
as untrue or inaccurate) by a publisher or
author when its findings are no longer consid-
ered trustworthy because of error, plagiarism,
a violation of ethical guidelines, or other scien-
tific misconduct.
Fears versus Facts
Wakefield’s paper had not yet been retracted
when Eaton was making her decision about
whether to vaccinate Caroline. But Eaton
followed the guidelines to distinguish science
from pseudoscience, and she concluded that
Wakefield and his colleagues had looked at too
small a sample of children. Therefore, the paper
“did not make a lasting impression,” recalls
Eaton. So she looked beyond that one paper to
others. The multitude of papers she found, all
with controls and larger sample sizes, assured
her that vaccination does not cause autism. In
the end, her research and scientific literacy led
Eaton to fully vaccinate all of her children on the
CDC’s recommended schedule.
In making her decision, Eaton was aware that
vaccines can have side effects. Most are minor,
like a sore arm or a low-grade fever. In some
very rare cases, however, vaccination can result
in a serious reaction. An allergic reaction to the
hepatitis B vaccine, for example, is estimated to
occur once in 1.1 million doses. A serious allergic
reaction to the MMR vaccine is seen less than
once in a million doses. The CDC maintains a
list of side effects and constantly monitors the
safety of vaccines (Figure 2.10).
Weighing the benefits of avoiding disease
against the small risk of side effects made the
choice to vaccinate her children clear, says
Eaton. “We [parents] are often so focused on
possible effects of the vaccines that we don’t
think about our kids getting these diseases” that
vaccines prevent, she says. The same was not
true for your great-grandparents; in the early
1900s, one in five children worldwide died of a
vaccine-preventable disease.
When making life choices based on scien-
tific claims, you sometimes need to consider
nonscientific aspects of your decision. YourFigure 2.9
The paper that precipitated the vaccine-autism scare is
debunked and retracted