MPs are to demand that the Editor of The Lancet explain why he issued only a “partial” retraction of the paper that implied a link between MMR and autism.

Ian Gibson, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said that the journal’s decision to revoke the interpretation of the 1998 paper “did it no credit”.

He said that it should now withdraw the paper entirely. He also said that Richard Horton, the Editor, would be asked to explain his actions to the committee.

Dr Gibson said: “Yes they are on the line, he is on the line, his editorial board is on the line and I look forward to his reply to his questions.” No date has been set.

On Wednesday the journal released a statement, signed by ten of the 13 authors of the original paper, announcing a “retraction of interpretation”. The ten authors said: “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data was insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health.

“In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper.”

However, the failure of all 13 authors to sign the statement, as well as the decision not to revoke the entire report, has angered senior MPs from all sides of the House.

Dr Gibson said last night that the situation was now muddled. “There can be no such thing as a partial retraction. You either believe in your data or you don’t. It seems that the researchers are trying to get off the hook in the face of the political storm which does them no credit,” he said.

He accused Mr Horton of further undermining public confidence in the scientific process. “It is not to their credit that they have done it this late in the game.”

His comments were echoed by Evan Harris, a member of the committee who campaigns to restore faith in the MMR vaccine. He described The Lancet’s announcement as a nonsense. “We are in no man’s land. We have a paper half retracted by half the authors. What does that mean?” He said that what was needed now was a full public inquiry, but that Mr Horton was resisting this. “I can’t understand why Richard Horton said he would welcome an independent inquiry but now says he rejects a public inquiry because he wants collaborative consultation.”

Mr Horton said that while he had disowned the section linking autism and MMR as “fatally flawed”, there was other vital research that needed to remain in the public domain.

“There are children out there with bowel disease and autism and it is very important that doctors recognise that syndrome and treat it.

“If you retract this paper in full on the basis of only a small part then the potential damage you can do is very great.”

Times Recommends

• Donor organ allowed child’s own heart to heal
• Michael Jackson: Not the final chapter
• Brüno toned down for 15 rating