Briefly read the attached Wakefield et al. (1998) study, but dont get bogged down in the medical jargon.

Briefly read the attached Wakefield et al. (1998) study, but dont get bogged down in the medical jargon. In no more than a paragraph (~3-4 sentences), summarize the paper and the conclusions.
Next, focus on the behavioral data reporting in the results (Table 2, in particular) and discussion sections. Based on our class discussions, comment on some of the limitations of the study. What is probably the most significant limitation? Why is this problematic?
Next, conduct some quick Internet research about the controversy surrounding the Wakefield et al. (1998) study itself (Brian Deers The Sunday Times investigation is very good). Comment on some of the ethical concerns surrounding Wakefields motivations and scientific misconduct. In doing so, specifically relate class topics we have discussed to these ethical issues. Why are the problems you have identified of significant importance?
Finally, focus on the real-world repercussions of the study. Based on your personal interest, find a subsequently published peer-review research paper that addresses some element of the studys consequence. You can concentrate on one of the following examples, but you are not limited to them:
Research that aimed to disprove the conclusions of Wakefield et al. (1998).
Data-driven research that honestly probes medical alternatives that sought to replace vaccines.
Research that addresses the social effects of Wakefield et al. (1998), such as . . .
…the emergence of the anti-vax movement.
…the psychological mechanisms that drive the anti-vax belief system (e.g. political view, biased thought/opinion, etc.).
…epidemiological studies that relate disease outbreak to the flawed conclusions by Wakefield et al (1998) and others.
In your paper’s final sections, contextualize the article you have selected then summarize it’s important points. What makes this a good piece of research (strive to relate to course content)? How does this work help rectify the fallout of Wakefield et al. (1998)? Has there been, or should there be, subsequent research conducted to expand the work in your selected article?

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]