Research practices must be changed to minimize fraud, deception

March 22, 2011

In 1998, a study linking the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism in children appeared in a respected medical journal. For a decade, the study grabbed headlines worldwide. Worried parents rejected the life-saving vaccine for their children and those with autistic children agonized that they allowed an injection that caused the condition.

But the vaccine-autism research was a fraud. The paper was retracted 12 years later, denounced as an elaborate deception.

"The fraud in that MMR study epitomizes how fabricated research can lead to a of tragic consequences," says Vineet Chopra, M.D., F.A.C.P., F.H.M., assistant professor of Internal Medicine at U-M. "Patients fear potentially lifesaving interventions, clinicians alter practice and scientists and governments waste precious resources to evaluate researchers' claims."

Chopra expresses these concerns in a commentary published in the March 23 with Matthew Davis, M.D., M.A.P.P., associate professor of pediatrics and , internal medicine and public policy at the University of Michigan Medical School and Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. They call for changes throughout the research process to adjust expectations for researchers that conduct studies, the journals that publish results and the public that responds to the findings.

Chopra and Davis emphasize the critical importance of equipoise—a state of genuine uncertainty on the part of the researcher as to what a study will reveal.

"In an era of increasing competition for funding and publication, researchers face mounting pressure to report the results they wish to see," says Davis. "Of course, it's natural for the public to want unequivocal advances in understanding and the latest accomplishments in medical research. But research doesn't always yield those results.

"The key is for funders, journals, the media and the public to value equipoise in the research process, rather than only the results."

In their JAMA commentary, Chopra and Davis recommend steps to reach research equipoise:

  1. Mandate the public release of all available data in connection with a study, as opposed to specific data associated with outcomes.
  2. Reduce publication bias, in which medical journals accept and publish chiefly those studies with statistically significant results. This jeopardizes consideration and dissemination of research pertaining to findings on both sides of an issue, and influences investigators before research begins.
  3. Shift the focus of public and private sponsors of research from outcome to process, affirming that study veracity is more valuable than results.
  4. Train researchers to recognize, appreciate and root out biases in their work.
"Researchers may lie about their research for personal or political gain. They make front page news when they get caught, but they represent a small part of the overall picture. A broader problem occurs when a researcher conducts a study with an answer to their question already in mind. Their certainty, rather than genuine uncertainty, influences their investigation and reporting, leading to results that may not be accurate," says Chopra.

More information: "Society demands research that is moral, ethical and honest. When this is not the case, both the public and researchers, even those telling the truth, lose." JAMA, March 23/30, 2011, Vol. 305, No. 12

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Drug therapy from lethal bacteria could reduce kidney transplant rejection

August 3, 2017
An experimental treatment derived from a potentially deadly microorganism may provide lifesaving help for kidney transplant patients, according to an international study led by investigators at Cedars-Sinai.

Exploring the potential of human echolocation

June 25, 2017
People who are visually impaired will often use a cane to feel out their surroundings. With training and practice, people can learn to use the pitch, loudness and timbre of echoes from the cane or other sounds to navigate ...

Team eradicates hepatitis C in 10 patients following lifesaving transplants from infected donors

April 30, 2017
Ten patients at Penn Medicine have been cured of the Hepatitis C virus (HCV) following lifesaving kidney transplants from deceased donors who were infected with the disease. The findings point to new strategies for increasing ...

'bench to bedside to bench': Scientists call for closer basic-clinical collaborations

March 24, 2017
In the era of genome sequencing, it's time to update the old "bench-to-bedside" shorthand for how basic research discoveries inform clinical practice, researchers from The Jackson Laboratory (JAX), National Human Genome Research ...

The ethics of tracking athletes' biometric data

January 18, 2017
(Medical Xpress)—Whether it is a FitBit or a heart rate monitor, biometric technologies have become household devices. Professional sports leagues use some of the most technologically advanced biodata tracking systems to ...

Financial ties between researchers and drug industry linked to positive trial results

January 18, 2017
Financial ties between researchers and companies that make the drugs they are studying are independently associated with positive trial results, suggesting bias in the evidence base, concludes a study published by The BMJ ...

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

88HUX88
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2011
Yes, and what about how the media report findings (even valid ones), without them this MMR controversy may have been self-limiting, the biggest impact of various media (print and broadcast) is creating the two sides illusion and then giving equal weight to a vast amount of evidence versus a nutter - sorry iconoclast. In their defence, it makes a great story.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.