Retraction of scientific papers: the case of vaccine research

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

The controversy over vaccines has recently intensified in the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, with calls from politicians, health professionals, journalists, and citizens to take harsh measures against so-called "anti-vaxxers," while accusing them of spreading "fake news" and as such, of endangering public health. However, the issue of suppression of vaccine dissenters has rarely been studied from the point of view of those who raise concerns about vaccine safety. The purpose of the present study was to examine the subjective perceptions of professionals (physicians, nurses, researchers) involved with vaccines through practice and/or research and who take a critical view on vaccines, about what they perceive as the suppression of dissent in the field of vaccines, their response to it, and its potential implications on science and medicine. Respondents reported being subjected to a variety of censorship and suppression tactics, including the retraction of papers pointing to vaccine safety problems, negative publicity, difficulty in obtaining research funding, calls for dismissal, summonses to official hearings, suspension of medical licenses, and self-censorship. Respondents also reported on what has been termed a "backfire effect" - a counter-reaction that draws more attention to the opponents' position. Suppression of dissent impairs scientific discourse and research practice while creating the false impression of scientific consensus.

Is Covid-19 "vaccine uptake" in postsecondary education a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry

Since the launch of the Covid-19 global vaccination campaign, postsecondary institutions have strongly promoted vaccination, often through mandates, and the academic literature has identified "vaccine uptake" among postsecondary students as a problem deserving monitoring, research, and intervention. However, with the admission that vaccines do not stop viral spread, that older-age and co-morbidities are major determinants of poor outcomes, and that many vaccine side effects disproportionately affect the young, it cannot be assumed that a risk-benefit analysis favors vaccinating postsecondary students. Drawing from critical policy studies, I appraise the literature on Covid-19 vaccine uptake in postsecondary education. I find that this literature reflects the "scientific consensus," hardly acknowledging contradictory medical evidence, ignoring coercive elements underlying "vaccine acceptance," and neglecting ethical tensions built into the very design of vaccination policies. I discuss potential explanations for my findings, and their implications for academia's role in society in the COVID-19 era and beyond.

Addressing conflicts of interest regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks based on good governance for health approach: a policy brief

BACKGROUND

Infectious disease outbreaks pose a significant threat to public health, and achieving herd immunity highlights the importance of addressing conflicts of interest (COI) in vaccine development and policy-making. This policy brief aims to present policy options that address COI regarding vaccines in infectious disease outbreaks, based on good governance for health approach.

METHODS

Our study used a scoping review methodology. We conducted a systematic search, which led to identifying 43 eligible articles. A qualitative approach (i.e., content analysis) was employed for data analysis, using "ATLAS.ti 9" software. The primary results underwent a process of cleaning, categorisation, and subsequent discussion in three sessions with the research team.

RESULTS

Relationships between theindustry and "government/policymakers" as well as "academic institutions/researchers" are prominent origins of COI regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks. To address this issue, we present nine policy options that target both the root cause of the problem and the adoption of good governance for health approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The key principles of good governance for health, including, "Transparency", "The Rule of Law", "Effectiveness", "Efficiency", "Participation", "Consensus Orientation", "Equality", "Responsibility", "Responsiveness" and "Accountability" must be taken into account when formulating policy options to address COI regarding the vaccine in infectious disease outbreaks. The effectiveness of the policy options outlined in this policy brief should be assessed in practical contexts, as this evaluation may uncover the need for revisions.

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

The emergence of COVID-19 has led to numerous controversies over COVID-related knowledge and policy. To counter the perceived threat from doctors and scientists who challenge the official position of governmental and intergovernmental health authorities, some supporters of this orthodoxy have moved to censor those who promote dissenting views. The aim of the present study is to explore the experiences and responses of highly accomplished doctors and research scientists from different countries who have been targets of suppression and/or censorship following their publications and statements in relation to COVID-19 that challenge official views. Our findings point to the central role played by media organizations, and especially by information technology companies, in attempting to stifle debate over COVID-19 policy and measures. In the effort to silence alternative voices, widespread use was made not only of censorship, but of tactics of suppression that damaged the reputations and careers of dissenting doctors and scientists, regardless of their academic or medical status and regardless of their stature prior to expressing a contrary position. In place of open and fair discussion, censorship and suppression of scientific dissent has deleterious and far-reaching implications for medicine, science, and public health.