In this lesson we will look at the case of Andrew Wakefield, a discredited gastroenterologist

who became famous after publishing findings that the MMR vaccine was linked to initially
Crohns disease and later ASD. The Guardian article below the voices the opinion of some of
Wakefields opponents, whereas Wakefield himself defends his position on Youtube (link).
Whereas Wakefield has now been struck off the medical register for his discredited
research, it is important to understand that his findings were at the time considered fairly
credible and many parents became sceptic about offering the MMR vaccine to their children
as a result. Despite the repercussions from the scientific world, there are still sizable
Wakefield supporter groups, who also claim to have the truth on their side.
In this lesson, we will analyse what makes an argument convincing.
We will also use real life situations (article) to develop knowledge questions.

Struck off MMR doctor handed award for

'lifetime achievement in quackery'
Andrew Wakefield, discredited over autism-MMR vaccine link claims, is named Good Thinking
Society's Golden Duck winner
Sunday 23 December 2012 15.45 GMT Last modified on Wednesday 21 May 2014 13.41 BST
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/23/struck-off-mmr-doctor-quackery-award

Andrew Wakefield, the doctor struck off the medical register for his discredited research that
claimed to find a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, can add another honour to his list this
Christmas: the inaugural Golden Duck award for lifetime achievement in quackery, set up by the
science writer Simon Singh.
Runners-up for the award were Prince Charles and David Tredinnick, the Tory MP for Bosworth and
member of the Commons health select committee. The Good Thinking Society, a campaign group led
by Singh, set up the annual Golden Duck award to recognise those "who have supported or practised
pseudoscience in the most ludicrous, dangerous, irrational or irresponsible manner".
In 1998, Wakefield was the lead author of a paper in the Lancet medical journal that suggested a link
between the measles virus and inflammatory bowel disease. The paper also suggested the virus
played a role in the development of autism. Wakefield later said that his research led him to believe
that, instead of the MMR triple vaccine, children should be given a series of single vaccines. His
statements led to alarm around the world, a drop in the rate of MMR vaccination and, in the UK, a
rise in cases of measles cases.

In 2010, the Lancet formally retracted Wakefield's paper and he was struck off the medical register
after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct. Subsequent studies have found no
credible link between MMR and either autism or Crohn's disease.
Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at Bristol University, said that Wakefield's legacy was "many,
many thousands of unimmunised children born over the last 15 years whose parents decided MMR
was too risky at the time and subsequently have forgotten all about it. Measles rates are up and they
will only decline when this accumulation of susceptibles has either had the vaccine or the disease."
Singh said Wakefield's impact on vaccination in the past decade had been important and worrying.
"Reminding people of these issues is very important," he said.
The Golden Duck award was voted on by attendees of the many Skeptics in the Pub groups, which
convene talks and events around rationalism. Tredinnick made the shortlist for his parliamentary
motions supporting homeopathy and other unproven medical ideas. Prince Charles was on the list
for his long-term support for groups that lobby for alternative, unproven therapies.
Singh said the idea for the Golden Duck award was inspired by similar prizes in Australia and the
Netherlands. "We thought if we're going to kickstart it over here, then rather than make it a prize for
2012, let's think about all the ones we've missed, let's make it a lifetime award for quackery."
He added that it was part of a growing attempt by sceptic groups to organise and challenge bad uses
of science and evidence in public. "We see a decline in homeopathy in the NHS and we see a decline
in the number of homeopathic hospitals. We see sceptics using regulatory authorities or the
Advertising Standards Authority to clamp down on misleading claims.
"I think gradually people that care about evidence and science are getting their message across. All
the time what we care about is the consumer or patient.
"It's not just an intellectual battle or a battle of ideas, it's about protecting people from misleading
information."
Next year's Golden Duck award will be for behaviour in 2013 and likely to focus on politics. "We
want to see politicians who, if they're not necessarily scientists, are willing to listen to scientists and
are willing to take on board the evidence that surrounds them, rather than ignore it completely,"
said Singh.
He said the Good Thinking Society would keep an eye, in particular, on the health secretary, Jeremy
Hunt, who has previously signed early-day motions on homeopathy. "Next year will be really
interesting. With politicians knowing they will be monitored in this way, is it going to affect their
behaviour?"

Clip where Wakefield defends his position:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTrxsJKQAW4

Questions:
1. Andrew Wakefield and the Good Thinking Society have opposing knowledge claims. Which
ones?

2. What does the Good Thinking Society say about Wakefields methodology?

3. What does Wakefield (and his supporters) say about his search for knowledge?

4. Which arguments do you find most convincing? Who do you believe: the supporters or
opponents of Wakefield and why?

5. Think of possible knowledge questions on the basis of this article in groups.