The absence of an independent inquiry into the Wakefield case is a lost opportunity

It is unfortunate that there was not an independent inquiry into the Wakefield case.1 More was at stake than just Wakefield. Several questions arise that go beyond University College London’s oversight role in this research debacle. For example, how could a leading international medical journal like the Lancet fail in its gate keeping role to prevent fraudulent research?

Furthermore, Wakefield’s retracted paper reflects a larger problem about the rising—some argue alarming—rate of retracted papers in high impact journals.2 3 As a series of papers on retraction in the Journal of Medical Ethics indicates, retracted papers can negatively affect patient safety.4

What needs to be done to deal with this problem effectively? And what role can journals play as gate keepers in research oversight? What other institutions are responsible for creating more effective research oversight, and how could their oversight roles coordinate? Does the recent collaboration between industry and the medical publishing community that targeted a credibility gap tackle the problem effectively?5

An independent inquiry would, I hope, have explored and dealt with these matters and offered recommendations. The absence of an inquiry is a lost opportunity.