This week\u2019s blog was going to be on \u201cBusiness and Nanomaterials\u201d.\u00a0 However, there have been several publications that passed through my readings that addressed the same issue and the same person.\u00a0 It goes back to a 1998 publication in the Lancer, <\/i>which is a respected British Medical Journal. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a medical researcher issues the results of a study where he claimed that the common vaccine for Measles, mumps, and rubella had a direct link to autism.\u00a0 It appears that Wakefield manipulated the testing protocols, which gave the results he was after.\u00a0 There are a number of highly questionable parts of this effort including that his sample population for the testing was very small, the testing was focused on getting the results desired, and some of the funding was supplied by parties interesting in having these type of results for litigation.\u00a0 The \u201cexperiment\u201d was not replicated by an uninterested party.\u00a0 [1]<\/p>\n
Today\u2019s news business is focused on getting a story out first and the more controversy that it raises the better it is.\u00a0 The news media picked up the results of Wakefield\u2019s \u201cstudy\u201d and resulted in a significant number of people who took a stand against subjecting their children to the stated \u201cdangers\u201d of vaccine.\u00a0 In her 2010 blog [2], Susan Watts writes that this case is not the only issue that exists with \u201cscientific studies\u201d that are quickly publicized by the news.\u00a0 She talks about how studies currently in the news conveniently omit data that might change the preconception the researcher started with.\u00a0 The key question that is being raised is how accurate are scientific studies.\u00a0 Susan asks the question: \u201cHow rigorous are ethical checks on medical research?\u201d<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve pointed out in a past blog that governmental agencies do release conflicting and contradictory directives.\u00a0 This raises the question of what can one believe and how does one find out what is actually truthful.\u00a0 First, one needs to find sources that appear to be factual and then check these sources.\u00a0 If someone indicates there is no need to check sources, you had better check them thoroughly.\u00a0 From [1], Catherine Shoults points out that 2% of scientists admit to fabricating falsifying, or modifying data or results?<\/p>\n
So the question is: \u201cHow does this fit into nanotechnology?\u201d\u00a0 The issue is that results are published and taken as absolute fact before there is any real opportunity for others to evaluate the procedures and replicate the results.\u00a0 We need researchers to do experimental and theoretical work and provide\u00a0 their conclusions and permit other, unaffiliated researchers to review the procedures and conclusions.\u00a0 To determine what is safe and what needs to be further investigated, we need real results.\u00a0 Accurate results come from conducting experiments with a stated hypothesis and then evaluating the results to prove or disprove the hypothesis.\u00a0 Nanomaterials are interesting in that they can change over time.\u00a0 If one takes graphene, a conductor, and attaches hydrogen to it, it becomes graphene, an insulator.\u00a0 There is so much that needs to be learned about nanomaterials, that erroneous results will cause delays in good applications of the technology.<\/p>\n
References:<\/b><\/p>\n
[1] \u201cBreaking the Rules of Scientific Integrity\u201d. Catherine C. Shoults. Phi Kappa Phi Forum. Fall 2013. P.26.<\/p>\n