A surge of publicity has highlighted again the research published in The Lancet in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield and others alleging a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. This has important lessons for the debate about animal research.
In modern western democracies it is inevitable that some individuals who are either practising scientists, or have a science background, will advocate a line of argument that conflicts with the vast bulk of the scientific evidence.
In many cases, we can see a reason why those individuals might favour a particular theory. Those advocating ‘intelligent design’ mostly have a religious perspective. Those opposed to any form of genetic modification often have strong environmental passions. Those who argue that the MMR vaccine is unsafe may be linked to pressure groups comprising parents whose children have developed autism, or even be against all vaccines.
For the field of animal research, the small number of ‘scientists’ who claim that it is inherently flawed usually turn out to have animal rights beliefs. Typical is the group Europeans for Medical Progress (EMP), which is an animal rights group masquerading as a scientific organisation.
The mere fact that some individuals have a scientific background does not mean that a particular line of argument they promote is inherently credible. It remains an important task for the media to discern where the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and expertise lies, before giving equal balance to extreme minority views.
Another lesson we can learn from the MMR debacle is that any type of research can be flawed if it is badly carried out. EMP currently argues on its website that we should use research tools and methods ‘focusing exclusively on human biology’. Yet that is exactly what Andrew Wakefield and his co-authors did in their research. The alleged link between MMR and autism came from studies of human bowel samples and other data from human tests. The results were flawed and highly misleading. No form of research guarantees the correct answer. Only the animal rights groups focus exclusively on the limitations of animal research. Such short-sightedness and selective use of evidence makes no sense.
<Wrap up...>
