The intricate relation between science, economy and politics: the MMR vaccine case

The common vulgate, both in many scientists and in common-sense, is that science proceeds by facts and experimentally tested hypotheses. The scientific knowledge would derive, therefore, from repeated experiments that would confirm them. On the contrary, such hypotheses would decline. Unlike, social studies of science (several decades ago) have documented how experiments do not have the main role in the affirmation of certain hypotheses (and theories). Other factors (political, cultural, economic, etc.) have a more prominent role. In addition and complementarily, facts are professionally constructed. However, social studies of science argue that it would be too simplistic not to take into consideration the role of experiments in scientific controversies. Yet, not always. The Wakefield case (a British gastroenterologist and former medical researcher, struck off the UK medical register for supposed unethical behavior and other supposed misconduct, surrounding his supposed fraudulent 1998 research article) shows how today, even in the Western and democratic world, scientific hypotheses can be eliminated not by means of experiments or counter-arguments, but by political actions and journalistic inquiries, (which later proved to be ungrounded).