| Happy Passover and Easter to all ANA members.
The recent controversy over the Astra-Zeneca vaccine data1 and what the real efficacy rate is for this product brings into sharp focus how critically important data integrity is for science and society. I sense that the tribal degradation of political news reporting during the past four years into facts vs alternative facts has spilled over into scientific “reportage” We need to avoid any tendency for “spin” of results, steering well clear of hyperbole. Social media like Twitter has wonderful attributes, including the democratization of information, but by design is limited to 240 characters. We must ensure that each one of those characters in a tweet is rooted in reproducible empiricism. Similarly in commentaries and editorials we must be intentional to present a balanced view. That view need not be neutral or bland, but it must be backed by the available science. One powerful example of how misinterpreted (or manufactured data) can have major societal consequences comes from the Andrew Wakefield Lancet article in 1998. Even after its retraction the adoption of MMR vaccines by parents fell, often below levels necessary to maintain herd immunity. By 2017, measles cases had soared globally, with large outbreaks in several countries including the USA3. As academics it is our responsibility to our mentees, our funders, and of course to our patients to strive for data integrity and reproducibility. I encourage all in leadership roles in academic neurology to continue efforts to publicize the need for data integrity, and to ensure that authors’ contributions to research publications are authentic and carry responsibility. The Editors-in-Chief of the ANA’s two publications, Annals of Neurology and ACTN are very aware of these trends, and we support their efforts to ensure that publications in this society’s journals can be trusted. Warm regards, Justin C. McArthur, MBBS, MPH |