The effect of the neonatal Continuous Negative Extrathoracic Pressure (CNEP) trial enquiries on research in the UK: Table 1

The science of paediatrics, child health research, and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

“…The most recent version does however include the statement ‘Groups that are underrepresented in medical research should be provided appropriate access to participation in research’ 2. Children's research has not been immune from controversy: the ethics of the Willowbrook hepatitis studies3 conducted in New York in the 1950s in institutionalised children remain discussed to this day;4 the misrepresented Continuous Extrathoracic Negative Pressure trial in neonates in the 1980s led to sweeping reform of research regulation in the UK;5 the report by Wakefield in 19986 suggesting a causal link between MMR immunisation and autism, even though discredited, resulted in a fall in immunisation rates and an outbreak of measles in the UK in 2013;7 the relevance of statistics for physicians cannot be illustrated more graphically than by the experience of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, former President of the RCPCH 8…”

David Southall: anatomy of a wrecked career

“…But during the 11 years, wrote Neena Modi and Neil McIntosh, current and former vice presidents for science and research of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, "the lead investigators endured prolonged suspension, traumatised personal lives, multiple GMC hearings, loss of income, career destruction and repeated vilification in the press." 13 Three professors of paediatrics have been struck off by the GMC, Southall notes, and all three have been reinstated by the courts-himself, Roy Meadow ( an expert witness for the prosecution in the Sally Clark case), and John Walker-Smith (an author of the discredited Lancet paper that claimed a link between MMR and autism). The courts are starting to look more critically at the GMC: in two cases in March this year-those of Walker-Smith and a psychiatrist, Robin Lawrence-judges made devastating criticisms of the quality of the panels' decision making before quashing their findings.…”