Weird (and very bad) Science

On the heels of the recent discussion about inoculations, the London Times is reporting that "the doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism" (MMR is the abbreviation for the vaccine given for the diseases measles, mumps, and rubella).

The article is interesting; the reporters unraveled the tale by obtaining some confidential medical documents and witness interviews. What is really surprising is that the original study was based on only 12 children, and was subsequently published in the venerable British medical journal, The Lancet. I'm certainly not a scientist, but that sounds like a rather small sample size. Is this common, those of you in scientific fields?

Of course, the sample size doesn't matter when the evidence is tampered with. The linked article lays out the investigators' findings as such:

"confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal."

That's pretty shocking, and not without consequence. Inoculation rates in the U.K. have fallen to below 80% from as high as 92%, and there were 1,348 cases of measles last year, versus 56 in 1998. The article was published in 1998, and eventually recanted in 2004 by most of the authors of the paper. The recent reporting comes out of an investigation by the U.K.'s General Medical Council into Andrew Wakefield, the center of the controversy.

It seems like a case where the peer-review model failed, but can we really hold the system accountable if the data are false? But what about the sample size? Where in the system are the controls for data integrity? I would assume that severe cesure and professional death are strong controls on most researchers not doing something like this. If Andrew Wakefield is found guilty of unethical behavior by the General Medical Council, I'm sure he'll likely face a number of nasty, career-ending punishments. Even though the study had been basically discredited over the last five years, this new information really seals the deal, it seems-- and certainly doesn't bode well for Wakefield.

In addition, I think this speaks directly to what my fellow bloggers on this site have been talking about with respect to the need for professional journalism. Brian Deer's decade long investigation of this fraudulent study is an example of the press doing something invaluable for society, something that could not be done by anyone but a supported, professional journalist. Especially when the people being investigated sue the journalist (as Wakefield did to Deer, though Wakefield had to abandon the suit and was forced to pay a settlement to Deer-- seriously, that is a great system to stop junk lawsuits). Deer also reported that Wakefield had applied for patents for a measles vaccine that would serve as an alternative to the MMR vaccine. Deer's site has an amazing run-down of the ten-year unfolding of this scandal.

In any event, this is more evidence that you need to get your kids fucking vaccinated, even if your religion requires a medieval distrust of science and book-larnin', or you choose to believe in mystic crystals, tarot cards, and Earth Godesses to keep your offspring healthy.

Idiot Connoisseurs

This "experiment" conducted by Washington Post writer Gene Weingarten and violin virtuoso Joshua Bell is the epitome of why classical music is in decline. In January, Weingarten arranged with Bell to film him playing for 45 minutes at the L'Enfant Plaza Metro station to see if "In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?" What they got was a bunch of random people racing from the train to get to work, to get to school, to do whatever compels them to be getting off a train at 7:51am on a Friday. This reaction, shocking to them, is proof of the lamentable death of classical music, and the general lowness of our culture in turn. There is so much wrong with this article, but I will just point out a couple of things.

--It is amazing the arrogant lengths some classical music connoisseurs will go to prove that their tastes are better. I may not consider myself a connoisseur, but I am a long time classical fan, starting at around age eleven when I played viola. While I have long since quit that, I remained a fan and worked for four years cataloging classical CDs for Schwann Opus. On my best day, I might be able to recognize Joshua Bell on sight, but probably not. Definitely not if it is 7:55am and I have five minutes to get from the station to work. He writes that 1,097 people passed by in the time Bell played, but fewer than five percent stopped to watch for even a minute. This stands as proof for Weingarten that everyday schlubs do not recognize greatness when it slaps them in the face. I mean, c'mon people, this is Joshua Bell play Bach with a Stradivarius, how could you not drop everything and watch for forty-five minutes on a cold January morning? The reality is that very few (arguably nobody) can tell the difference between a Stradivarius and another high-end instrument. The average person will not be able to tell the difference between Joshua Bell and his equally good peers. With no context, throwing "beauty" in the face of the masses, this is not the way to appeal to people. This is like a street corner religious fanatic screaming at you that you're going to Hell, then scoffing at you for not stopping to convert on your way to the movies. The experiment appears set up to fail, to exist for no other reason than to prove the lowness of the everyday person.

--Speaking of arrogant, I hope Weingarten was being facetious in the delusional attitude of his fellow editors on likely outcomes of the event. "The most widely held assumption was that there could well be a problem with crowd control." Indeed, a riot scene because Bell plays Bach...gasp! Weingarten even uses tear gas and rubber bullets to describe what he hoped for. While I'm sure he isn't serious with the last part, the gall that it takes to even think that a possibility is laughable. Joshua Bell may be a heartthrob to prep school debs who swoon over his class but Elvis he ain't. That he could feign any kind of surprise that the reaction didn't happen is clearly insane.

--Classical music fans often lament the seeming death of their musical love. Indeed, there is much to lament. As the generations pass, there seem to be fewer and fewer young people interested in the genre, and this is a shame. There are a number of reasons, some of which are accurately described in the article. A very important reason, however, remains undiscussed as, in order to do so, Weingarten would have to look in on himself as complicit in the murder. In his description of the pieces Bell played, Weingarten floridly describes the two Bach pieces, relays the historical signifcance of Shubert's "Ave Maria," then glosses over the rest, going so far to say "then a piece by Jules Massenet," which clearly does not deserve the same kind of gushing. When connosieurs discuss the greatness of classical music, their discussion begins and ends with the canon which, basically, contains the "3 B's" (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms), Mozart, and virtually nothing written in the 20th century, let alone currently. Therefore, every generation that passes gets farther and farther removed from the cultural relevance that they great composers brought to their respective times. Why was rock music so popular with kids in the middle of the 20th century? Cultural relevance. Why rap at the end? Cultural relevance. Add some back into classical composition, take it out of the academy, and the forms could resurge. It will die before long without some kind of action, but the masses will never rise to the connoisseurs level, much as they would like the masses to.

--I wonder what would happen if metal guitar virtuoso, Buckethead, showed up at the Washington Post offices, plugged in and played something good and heavy for 45 minutes? Would Weingarten stand there admiring the complexity of his chord choices or the rich textures he creates? No, rather I think there would be a quick call to the cops. Why? Obviously, metal guitar is a "lesser" form than classical violin and is unworthy of such an impromtu performance? Or is it that Weingarten and I do not, nor should we, have exactly the same tastes. While classical music may be on the decline, listening to music is certainly not and, if somebody gets joy and enlightenment from Mos Def, from Buckethead, or from Jascha Heifetz, isn't the important thing that people see beauty from art, regardless of it's form?