This entry covers the Wakefield, et. al reading from Science and Society, pages 183-197.

Aim for a substantial paragraph in your answer, not just single sentences or one-word answers. Answer each question as listed. Label your answers so I know which question you are answering. You do not have to re-type or copy the question. Use specific details from the text to help support your answers. You may type directly into the submission box, attach your entry as an MS Word document, PDF file, RTF file, or a link to a Google Document. (Click the Share button, then select “Get Shareable Link” and be sure “Anyone with link can view” is enabled.)

1. Describe Wakefield’s experiment. Be sure to include a brief discussion of the conclusions or findings. Does the experiment, as described in the article, support the conclusions in the Discussion section? Explain.

2. Describe an ileocolonoscopy and a lumbar puncture. (Google these if necessary.) What are some side effects of these procedures? Why might these procedures be done on children? These procedures did not serve a diagnostic function in Wakefield’s study. In your opinion, was it ethical to do these procedures for this study? Explain.

3. Which “history” of the child’s symptoms dominates in the article: parental recollection or documented occurrence? Which should dominate in an article of this kind? Why?

4. Look carefully at the citations in this paper. How many times do the researchers cite themselves? What is the average length of the documents cited? (Standard peer-reviewed articles are a minimum 5-10 single spaced pages, often longer.) How does checking the citations affect your perception of this study?

5. What specific question(s) drive Wakefield, et al.’s study? Where specifically in the text can you find them?

6. What is your overall reaction to this article? You can talk about the science, the writing, both, etc.