Reference no: EM133511153
Problem
Writing Prompt: Students, you will evaluate a summary of a scientific investigation to see if it fits the guidelines of "good science" as described in the Module's resources. Do not attempt to do this discussion board until you have read Chapter 1/Sections 1.3.1 through 1.3.7 (Studying Nature, Scientists Form & Test Hypotheses) in your eText, studied the notes (Ch 1 Notes_BIO 103 Actions), and viewed the video (The Process of Science). These resources will help you understand the guidelines of "good science" so that you can discuss what the investigators did wrong/incorrectly in their investigation (see the summary of the investigation below).
Step I: Read the summary of the article/investigation.
The article was originally published by: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. A.J. Wakefield, S.H. Murch, A. Anthony, J. Linnell, D.M. Casson, M. Malik, M. Berelowitz, A.P. Dhillon, M.A. Thomson, P. Harvey, A. Valentine, S.E. Davies, J.A. Walker-Smith. The Lancet, Volume 351, Number 9103, 28 February 1998.
Summary
Background: We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic digestive problems and regressive developmental disorders.
Methods: Twelve children (mean age 6 years [range 3-10], eleven boys) were referred to a pediatric gastroenterology unit with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhea and abdominal pain. Children underwent gastroenterological, neurological, and developmental assessment and review of developmental records.
Findings: The onset of behavioral symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination in eight of the twelve children. All twelve children had intestinal abnormalities. Behavioral disorders included autism (9), disintegrative psychosis (1), and possible postviral or vaccinal brain inflammation (2).
Interpretation: We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was associated in time with possible environmental triggers (MMR vaccine).
Step II: Post. In your post, include the original questions and answer the following questions to the best of your ability:
Question 1. What is your initial reaction to reading the summary of the investigation?
Question 2. Did you find any flaws? If so, explain. (Do not respond saying you did not find any flaws because there are several.)
Question 3. Does the evidence in the summary support the claim that autism is linked to or caused by the MMR vaccine? Explain why or why not.
Question 4. Thinking critically like a scientist, what types of questions should be asked and what data should have been examined to determine if the MMR vaccine causes autism?