Where are the monkeys?
February 12th, 2010
[Kudos to KWombles who alerted me to this story]
This morning, when I went to find the Hewitson et al (2009) article in the journal Neurotoxicology - the article that had been the inspiration for my post “A ‘Made for Court’ Study?” - I found that it had been withdrawn (see here).
Given that there has been a recent cry of “Show me the monkeys!” from “the usual suspects” in anticipation of the next episode of Hewitson et al, I find the withdrawal of their first paper intriguing. I can’t help but wonder if this is somehow related to the results they intended to publish in their second paper - the one that “the usual suspects” have been crowing about.
The Pollyanna part of me (a very small part, I assure you) wants to believe that the authors have withdrawn the paper in order to correct its many serious flaws. Of course, this would require not just a simple re-write but a complete redesign of the study and starting again from scratch - rather like “remodeling” a house by tearing it out, foundation and all, filling in the hole and starting over. This may be the case.
Another possibility is that they want to re-do their statistical analyses and conclusion, since their data show not only that they cannot distinguish between thimerosal and the hepatitis B vaccine as a cause of the “neurodevelopmental abnormalities” but also that they can’t actually say that there was any significant difference between the treated and control groups. After all, negative results are results, too.
However, I suspect that the real reason may be that the editors of Neurotoxicology took a long, hard look at the paper and decided that it wasn’t worth publishing, after all. Some small (or large) part of the impetus behind that decision - if that is, indeed, what happened - might be the recent conclusions of the GMC regarding the “anchor” author, Andrew J. Wakefield. That’s not the best reason to withdraw the paper, but it’s better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons than not at all.
Whichever way it turns out, the “Show me the monkeys!” cry is going to sound a little more hollow now that the first article of the series has been withdrawn.
Doubtless, the first act of “the usual suspects” will be to paint this as part of the “massive conspiracy to supress the Truth about autism”. However, Neurotoxicology has been very sympathetic to the “something-in-vaccines-causes-autism” movement, publishing several low-quality studies by people (not necessarily even researchers - see this one) who feel that vaccines somehow cause autism, so it’s a bit of a stretch to start screaming that they are “censoring” autism research now.
We (or, at least, I) don’t know why the article was withdrawn, and it may be for reasons that I’ve not contemplated. But having an article withdrawn after being accepted is never a good thing. Again, I hope that it was withdrawn by the authors because they have read the criticisms about their study and want to re-write it to correct their mistakes. Of course, even though I hope that is the reason, I realise that isn’t the most likely reason. Only time will tell.
Meanwhile, where are the monkeys?!?
Prometheus
Filed under: Autism Science
February 12th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Prometheus,
I have been wondering if you plan to write about the increase in autism prevalence reported by the ADDM network. This is research of much greater rigour and significance than the monkey study you seem a bit obsessed about. Also, considering your post from about a year ago Five Easy Graphs, you certainly are very interested in the topic.
Best,
Bisser
February 13th, 2010 at 3:18 am
One sad thing about the whole thing is that those monkeys, (however many there actually were), are all dead now. They died for no purpose whatsoever.
February 13th, 2010 at 5:08 am
The natural cynic in me, believing in conspiracy theries suspects that the monkeys no more exist than the hypothetical ones banging away on typewriters in some thought experiment.
At least I hope they do not exist to be abused to make an unsustainable legal case.
I would think that it behoves any research team which comes under suspicion of malpractice even if just by association, to produce exhibit A, 14 monkeys.
Surely one would want to prove ones innocence of the charges by allowing an extra degree of public scrutiny over and above the normal.
February 13th, 2010 at 11:16 am
http://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/publishahead/Lack_of_Association_Between_Measles_Mumps_Rubella.99421.aspx
There you go, an altogether more substantial paper, wonder what the opposition will make of this one, no doubt they will claim it was written by celestial monkeys at the behest of the illuminati.
February 13th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
BisserR,
From the report you cited:
Pretty much what I’ve been saying all along: we can’t tell if there is a real increase in autism prevalence or if the apparent increase is an artifact of changes in awareness, diagnostic criteria and public perception of autism.
I’ll consider reviewing the report in a future posting.
Prometheus
February 15th, 2010 at 2:22 am
One person who could shed some light on this situation is Andrew Wakefield. Presumably he is in possession of some communication from the Editor discussing why the paper was withdrawn, or he was he one who withdrew it.
Of course, his co-authors should also be in possession of this information.
Instead of making a statement they send Jenny and Jim out to tweet about conspiracies.
Very unprofessional, to say the least.
It seems clear to this observer that Dr. Wakefield has accepted his new position and has no problems burning bridges to even those journals that have published his material in the past.
Seriously, what editor would want a Wakefield paper now? Beyond the fiasco in The Lancet, Wakefield has now shown that if you don’t play his game his way, he will throw star power into the public arena and accuse you of conspiring to censor his work.
Yeah. Editors need that.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Makes you wonder if university review boards put questions like “what happened to the last monkey study” to researchers trying to get approval for more studies before they allow another set of monkeys.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:38 am
Orac at Respectful Insolence has a great take on the topic:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/quoth_mark_not_a_doctor_not_a_scientist.php#more