Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 203–213 | Cite as

Social values and scientific evidence: the case of the HPV vaccines

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

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.

Keywords

HPV vaccine Values in science Evidence for use 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Adam Y, van Gelderen CJ, de Bruyn G, McIntyre JA, Turton DA, Martinson NA (2008) Predictors of persistent cytologic abnormalities after treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Soweto, South Africa: a cohort study in a HIV high prevalence population. BMC Cancer 8:211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Cartwright N (2007) Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties 2:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clifford GM et al (2005) Worldwide distribution of human papillomavirus types in cytologically normal women in the international agency for research on cancer HPV prevalence surveys: a pooled analysis. Lancet 366(9490):991–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Douglas H (2007) Rejecting the ideal of value-free science. In: Kincaid H, Dupré J, Wylie A (eds) Value-free science? Ideals and illusions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 120–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Downs LS, Smith JS, Scarinci I, Flowers L, Parham G (2008) The disparity of cervical cancer in diverse populations. Gynecol Oncol 109(2 Suppl):S22–S30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunne EF, Markowitz LE (2006) Genital human papillomavirus infection. Clin Infect Dis 43(5):624–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dupré J (2007) Fact and value. In: Kincaid H, Dupré J, Wylie A (eds) Value-free science? Ideals and illusions. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Franco EL, Harper DM (2005) Vaccination against human papillomavirus infection: a new paradigm in cervical cancer control. Vaccine 23:2388–2394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frazer IH (2004) Prevention of cervical cancer through papillomavirus vaccination. Nat Rev Immunol 4(1):46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. García Carrancá A, Galván SC (2007) Vaccines against human papillomavirus: perspectives for controlling cervical cancer. Expert Rev Vaccines 6(4):497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garland SM et al (2007) Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med 356(19):1928–1943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grossman J, Mackenzie FJ (2005) The randomized controlled trial: gold standard, or merely standard? Perspect Biol Med 48(4):516–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harper DM (2008) Impact of vaccination with Cervarix (trade mark) on subsequent HPV-16/18 infection and cervical disease in women 15-25 years of age. Gynecol Oncol 110(3 Suppl 1):S11–S17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Hildesheim A et al (2007) Effect of human papillomavirus 16/18 L1 viruslike particle vaccine among young women with preexisting infection: a randomized trial. JAMA 298(7):743–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahn JA, Burk RD (2007) Papillomavirus vaccines in perspective. Lancet 369(9580):2135–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kitcher P (2001) Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kourany J (2003) A philosophy of science for the twenty-first century. Philosophy Science 70:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Longino H (2002) The fate of knowledge. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Moniz M, Ling M, Hung CF, Wu TC (2003) HPV DNA vaccines. Front Biosci 8:d55–d68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muñoz N, Bosch FX, Castellsagué X, Díaz M, de Sanjose S, Hammouda D, Shah KV, Meijer CJ (2004) Against which human papillomavirus types shall we vaccinate and screen? The international perspective. Int J Cancer 111(2):278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nallamothu BK, Hayward RA, Bates ER (2008) Beyond the randomized clinical trial: the role of effectiveness studies in evaluating cardiovascular therapies. Circulation 118(12):1294–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Pagliusi SR, Teresa Aguado M (2004) Efficacy and other milestones for human papillomavirus vaccine introduction. Vaccine 23(5):569–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 55(2):74–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Safaeian M, Solomon D, Castle PE (2007) Cervical cancer prevention-cervical screening: science in evolution. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 34(4):739–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schiller JT, Lowy DR (1996) Papillomavirus-like particles and HPV vaccine development. Semin Cancer Biol 7(6):373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schiller JT, Nardelli-Haefliger D (2006) Chapter 17: second generation HPV vaccines to prevent cervical cancer. Vaccine 24(Suppl 3:S3):147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Solomon M (2001) Social empiricism. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Suba EJ, Murphy SK, Donnelly AD, Furia LM, Huynh ML, Raab SS (2006) Systems analysis of real-world obstacles to successful cervical cancer prevention in developing countries. Am J Public Health 96(3):480–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. The Future II Study Group (2007a) Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med 356:1915–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. The Future II Study Group (2007b) Effect of prophylactic human papillomavirus L1 virus-like-particle vaccine on risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2, grade 3, and adenocarcinoma in situ: a combined analysis of four randomised clinical trials. Lancet 369:1861–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Warzecha H, Mason HS, Lane C, Tryggvesson A, Rybicki E, Williamson AL, Clements JD, Rose RC (2003) Oral immunogenicity of human papillomavirus-like particles expressed in potato. J Virol 77(16):8702–8711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) Viral cancer. Human papillomavirus. Available from http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/viral_cancers/en/index3.html

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Montana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations