Covering fraud, hype
and controversy
Thomas Abraham
Objectives


Two case studies of scientific controversies in
the media.
The right way and the wrong way to handle
these
Science, Feb 13 2004


If you are not clear about stem cells, go back
and re-read the “Cloning Trevor” story..
Also: http://www.nature.com/scitable
Injection of donor cell (WS
Hwang)
Two areas of
debate/controversy


US losing its edge in science
Religious and ethical issues surrounding
cloning
“The scientist that changed the world - Hwang Woo-Suk” – poster appearing on Korean
public transport during Hwang’s period of popularity.
Saunders R , Savulescu J J Med Ethics 2008;34:214-221
''We will be sitting here with the best scientists in the world
watching things on television,'‘ Dr. Jose B. Cibelli, professor of
animal biotechnology at Michigan State University.
Donald Kennedy, editor in chief of Science: ''I think there is no
question that the degree of restriction imposed now on stem cell
research in the U.S. has in fact given other nations some significant
advantages.''
''Already many biologists not only from America but the Asian countries
have made a visit to his lab,'' Dr. Moon said of Dr. Hwang's lab at the
news conference. ''He says they call it 'fantastic,' 'unbelievable,' 'a
cloning academy.' ''
PD Notebook: Investigative TV show broadcast by Munhwa Broadcasting
Corporation, Korea.
The role of journalism



1 June 2005 PD Notebook receives an e mail
from one of the researchers on Hwang’s team
saying his conscience is troubled, and asking PD
Notebook to contact him
Hak Soo Han a producer meets him that night
and is told that the eggs used for the researchers
had come from some women on the research
team
Also, he thought the 11 stem cell lines could not
have been produced by Hwang’s team



Han is not really convinced…after all the
paper was published by Science, but decides
to look into it anyway.
Recruits 3 scientists as consultants to help
them
Found two researchers who had worked with
Hwang to help


Interviews co author’s of the 2005 paper, and
find that many of them had not seen the
cloned stem cells; some experiments which
should have been conducted did not seem to
have been conducted
Han flies to Pittsburgh to meet a Korean coauthor of the paper, and the scientist who
was responsible for growing the stem cells
and tricks him into confessing
Public opinion in Korea pro
Hwang, anti PD Notebook



PD notebook broadcast one story about some
women being paid to provide eggs, and others
who felt they were forced to donate
But their next story was pulled after a rival
TV company interviewed the researcher in
Pittsburgh, who said that he had been tricked
by PD Notebook and forced to confess…
Public outrage, advertisers pull out of the
show. Show is scrapped by MBC TV
Other news organizations do
not follow up because
1. The paper was published in Science
 “I thought it was utterly ridiculous that a
thesis already carried in Science needed to be
examined by another specialist, especially by
the press [such as MBC’s PD-Notebook]”
 “Even when PD-Notebook became skeptical
of the paper, the other media didn’t dare
challenge both an internationally respected
refereed journal and a star scientist.”
2. Difficult to find other experts to either confirm or back


up the charges
One Korean reporter e-mailed 10 non-Korean scientists
requesting they verify the paper’s findings, but received
only two replies containing no useful information.
One reporter was suspicious, but “Though I learned
there was the possibility of a DNA mismatch from my
sources, I couldn’t write a story based on such an
impression.”
3.Personal trust in Hwang and his status as a
hero
 Many of the reporters who had met him knew
him to be very approachable, open, kind etc.
could not believe he would do this
 Hwang was also a national hero
4. Lack of experience and knowledge in
reporting science
 Very few reporters had actually read the
paper: the few who had were long time
science reporters, or had background in
medicine/biology
 Even if they had, it was impossible to verify
details of the paper


Meanwhile, other researchers post on
bulletin boards confirming the fraud
Seoul National University holds an inquiry,
and finds that the studies were fraudulent
Peer review does not prevent
fraud



2005 paper was first sent by Science to two
members of Board of Reviewing editors for a
preliminary review—they look for “novelty,
originality”, but do not review data
Once they approved, the paper was sent to 3
stem cell scientists for review. They were given
one week
These reviewers looked at the data- looked at the
data for genetic markers and DNA “fingerprints”
of the stem cells


“You look at data, but do not assume it is
fraud”
Journals, like newspapers, also want scoopswant to publish exciting, trend setting studies
The role of journalism




Investigative journalism requires hard
painstaking work
Understanding the science and the data- PDF
notebook hired outside scientists to help
Having good contacts and sources
Do not trust your sources either- everything
must be independently confirmed and
verified
The lead author

Andrew Wakefield,a
gastro-enterologist at
the Royal Free Hospital
in London who had
been researching the
link between MMR
vaccine and bowel
diseases in children
Wakefield held a press conference
once the paper was published



He said that children’s behaviour has
changed after receiving their MMR injections
Suggested that MMR should be stopped, and
that instead children should receive three
separate vaccinations.
“It’s a moral issue with me…If there are
children who are damaged by these
preventive measures they have to be listened
to investigated and treated…”
Also at the press conference


The dean of the Royal Free Hospital, Arie
Zuckerman, was also at the press conference,
but was critical of his colleague, and said
“this remains a hypothesis” and more
evidence was required.
Others warned of the dangers that would
arise if parents stopped giving their children
MMR
A major public controversy
arises



Wakefield maintained that MMR should be treated
with caution, and that vaccine manufacturers, public
health authorities have a vested interest in not
having a debate on this
Several parents of children who developed autism
back Wakefield, and form a pressure group, accusing
the authorities of a cover up.
Figures show a dramatic rise in autism in the UK
and USA in autism since the late 1980s when MMR
was introduced
This is a tough story to cover



You have powerful, persuasive voices on both
sidesHints that vaccine money, and government
interference are putting people’s health at
risk
There were also other elements…
Leo Blair….



British Prime Minister
Tony Blair’s youngest
son, Leo was due to
have his MMR injection
There was intense
speculation about what
his parents would do
They refused to
comment on it, saying it
was a private matter
A lot of media coverage
focussed on parental anxieties




“Ministers continue to insist the MMR jab which
some doctors have linked to autism is the best way
of protecting children” (ITV News, 5th Feb, 2002).
“Although health chiefs insist that the MMR vaccine
is safe, many parents have been put off by
uncertainty over possible links to autism and bowel
disorders” (Daily Mail, 5th Feb, 2002).
“The government has mounted campaigns to
persuade parents the MMR jab is safe after some
research linked it to autism and bowel disorders in
children”
(The Sunday Times, 28th April, 2002).
Parents of autistic children came forward
with dramatic, heart rending stories


Jackie Fletcher recounted her son was
normal until the age of 13 months, when he
received his MMR
Ten days later he went into a huge fit…Now at
age 10, he has autistic traits and a mental age
of 14 months
A report from the Daily Mail
“A three year old boy was given the MMR injection
without his parents consent, it was revealed
yesterday.
Michael Whitefield’s mother had paid for him to have
separate injections for measles, mumps and rubella
at a private clinic because of her concerns over the
triple jab.
But her son was given the controversial vaccination by
mistake by a nurse.
MMR has been linked to autism and bowel disease,
leading to a dramatic fall in uptake.”
In cases like this

Stick to the evidence!
Weaknesses of coverage




Almost all the scientific evidence ( except for
Wakefield’s own work) did not find any link between
the MMR vaccine and autism.
However, since journalists are trained to be
“balanced”, both sides were given equal coverage, as
if there was a serious debate with equal evidence on
both sides. Tendency to sensationalise
In the UK, after BSE, there has been a lot of
scepticism about the competence of the health
authorities, and this influenced coverage
Most reporters had not read the research on which
they were basing news stories.
Japanese study
In Japan, MMR vaccination was introduced in 1989,
and withdrawn in 1993, following safety concerns.
Instead, separate vaccines were introduced
 Comparison between children who received MMR
and children who received separate vaccines,
showed a rising trend in autism that continued even
after MMR was withdrawn- ie MMR could not be the
cause of the rising trend.
(Honda et al, No Effect of MMR Withdrawal on the
incidence of autism: a total population study.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2005)

Other studies
In Denmark, 537,303 children were studied,
82 percent of whom had received MMR, and
18 percent who had not.
 Found similar risk of autism between
vaccinated and unvaccinated children
( Madsen et al, A Population Based Study of
Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccination
and Autism, New England Journal of
Medicine Nov. 2002)

There will always be sceptical
voices
“The debate about MMR-autism rages on and
the Danish study is but another weak link in the
chain promoted by those who, it appears, would
vaccinate and be damned…the Danish study does
nothing to alter my view that MMR is probably
the cause of autism..”John P Hepponstall,
Director, Morley Acupuncutre Clinic and
Alternate Therapy Centre
In the meanwhile,
immunisation has fallen



In 1995-96, 96% of children had been
immunised
March 2004, only 80% of two year olds had
been immunised
Loss of herd immunity- danger of outbreaks
Lessons




See whether the findings have been published, or
whether they are just claims
Read the published paper- what exactly does it say,
what are the findings and weaknesses of the study?
Distinguish between studies that claim an
association between two things, and those that claim
a causal relationship
Learn to evaluate all the different voices and
opinions that you will hear