Social values and scientific evidence: the case of the HPV vaccines
- 258 Downloads
Several have argued that the aims of scientific research are not always independent of social and ethical values. Yet this is often assumed only to have implications for decisions about what is studied, or which research projects are funded, and not for methodological decisions or standards of evidence. Using the case of the recently developed HPV vaccines, we argue that the social aims of research can also play important roles in justifying decisions about (1) how research problems are defined in drug development, (2) evidentiary standards used in testing drug “success”, and (3) clinical trial methodology. As a result, attending to the social aims at stake in particular research contexts will produce more rational methodological decisions as well as more socially relevant science.
KeywordsHPV vaccine Values in science Evidence for use
This publication was made possible by Grant Number P20 RR-16455-06 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of NCRR or NIH.
- Blossom DB, Beigi RH, Farrell JJ, Mackay W, Qadadri B, Brown DR, Rwambuya S, Walker CJ, Kambugu FS, Abdul-Karim FW, Whalen CC, Salata RA (2007) Human papillomavirus genotypes associated with cervical cytologic abnormalities and HIV infection in Ugandan women. J Med Virol 79(6):758–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Munoz N et al (2002) The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol 55:244–265Google Scholar
- Fernández-San Millán A, Ortigosa SM, Hervás-Stubbs S, Corral-Martínez P, Seguí-Simarro JM, Gaétan J, Coursaget P, Veramendi J (2008) Human papillomavirus L1 protein expressed in tobacco chloroplasts self-assembles into virus-like particles that are highly immunogenic. Plant Biotechnol J 6(5):427–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fraillery D, Baud D, Pang SY, Schiller J, Bobst M, Zosso N, Ponci F, Nardelli-Haefliger D (2007) Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi Ty21a expressing human papillomavirus type 16 L1 as a potential live vaccine against cervical cancer and typhoid fever. Clin Vaccine Immunol 14(10):1285–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler CM, Moscicki AB, Romanowski B, Roteli-Martins CM, Jenkins D, Schuind A, Costa Clemens SA, Dubin G (2006) Sustained efficacy up to 4.5 years of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papillomavirus types 16 and 18: follow-up from a randomised control trial. Lancet 367:1247–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Longino H (2002) The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Paavonen J et al (2007) HPV PATRICIA study group. Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 369(9580):2161–2170 Erratum in: Lancet 370(9596):1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (2000) Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 2nd edn. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
- Solomon M (2001) Social empiricism. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2007) United States Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality. Atlanta (GA): Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Cancer InstituteGoogle Scholar
- World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) Viral cancer. Human papillomavirus. Available from http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/viral_cancers/en/index3.html