Retraction of scientific papers: the case of vaccine research

Abstract

The controversy over vaccines, which has recently intensified following the COVID-19 pandemic, provokes heated debates, with both advocates and opponents raising allegations of bias and fraud in research. Researchers whose work raises doubts about the safety of certain vaccines claim to be victims of discriminatory treatment aimed at suppressing dissent, including the unjustified retraction of their published research. Such practices have previously been discussed in other controversial fields in science (e.g., AIDS, the environment, and water fluoridation) but not in the field of vaccines. The purpose of this study was to analyze, for the first time, the subjective views of researchers whose papers were retracted. Study participants are active researchers, most with international reputations in their respective fields. They perceived retraction as a means of censoring and silencing critical voices with the aim of preserving the pro-vaccination agenda of interested parties. Participants also reported additional measures aimed at harming them personally and professionally. These findings point to the need for a fair, open, and honest discourse about the safety of vaccines for the benefit of public health and the restoration of trust in science and medicine.

Suppressing Scientific Discourse on Vaccines? Self-perceptions of researchers and practitioners

“…The present study expands on our previous study on the retraction of scientific papers (Elisha et al, 2021 ) to examine a broader range of suppression tactics among a wider range of professionals involved with vaccines (doctors and nurses, in addition to researchers). Note that we do not intend to express any position on the benefits or risks of vaccines, but rather, to give voice to those who perceive themselves as subjected to censorship and other suppressive tactics due to their controversial research or professional opinions on vaccine safety and efficacy.…”

“…Some researchers have also pointed to tactics of censorship and suppression of scholarly dissenters – researchers and physicians – who raise legitimate scientific concerns in the field of vaccines (Elisha, et al 2021 ; Martin, 2015a ; Vernon, 2017 ). Science requires open debate and challengers of the status quo.…”

“…Most health professionals assume that vaccine opponents are mostly hysterical parents or members of anti-vaccination groups who promote conspiracy theories and spread “fake news” about vaccines, thereby endangering science and public health (e.g., Jolley & Douglas, 2014 ; Lewandowsky et al, 2013 ). However, there are researchers and healthcare professionals who raise scientifically grounded concerns and criticisms about certain vaccines, and in response they experience exclusion, are mis-quoted, denounced as “anti-vaxxers” and are even threatened with job dismissal and/or revocation of their medical license (Vernon, 2017 ; Elisha et al, 2021 ).…”

Censorship and Suppression of Covid-19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter-Tactics

“…While complaints regarding scientific censorship and suppression preceded the pandemic (Elisha et al 2021 , 2022 ; Martin 2015 ), a new feature of the COVID era is the prominent role played by information technology companies such as Facebook and Google (Martin 2021 ). One prominent example was the down ranking of the Great Barrington Declaration’s website by Google (Myers 2020 ).…”

Superspreading and Heterogeneity in Epidemics

“…Due to a widespread feeling of urgency, the scientific publishing process has often been accelerated during the latest pandemic [156,157], and the exploitation of this trend by scientists "surfing the COVID-19 scientific wave" [158] has become a concern. Worse, there is circumstancial, formal, and judicial possible evidence that science is becoming increasingly politicized [159] as well as manipulated by governments and corporations, and that "legitimate tools of regulation within science have become weaponized" [160,161]. 47 According to the assessment of two renowned experts on business ethics and philosophy of science, these are not merely isolated cases, accidental mistakes, and coincidences.…”