Allegations of Fake Research Hit New High

fruitfly

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Messages
8,071
Allegations of misconduct by U.S. researchers reached record highs last year as the Department of Health and Human Services received 274 complaints - 50 percent higher than 2003 and the most since 1989 when the federal government established a program to deal with scientific misconduct.

Chris Pascal, director of the federal Office of Research Integrity, said its 28 staffers and $7 million annual budget haven't kept pace with the allegations. The result: Only 23 cases were closed last year. Of those, eight individuals were found guilty of research misconduct. In the past 15 years, the office has confirmed about 185 cases of scientific misconduct.

Research suggests this is but a small fraction of all the incidents of fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. In a survey published June 9 in the journal Nature, about 1.5 percent of 3,247 researchers who responded admitted to falsification or plagiarism. (One in three admitted to some type of professional misbehavior.)

On the night of his 12th wedding anniversary, Dr. Andrew Friedman was terrified.

This brilliant surgeon and researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School feared that he was about to lose everything - his career, his family, the life he'd built - because his boss was coming closer and closer to the truth:

For the past three years, Friedman had been faking - actually making up - data in some of the respected, peer-reviewed studies he had published in top medical journals.

"It is difficult for me to describe the degree of panic and irrational thought that I was going through," he would later tell an inquiry panel at Harvard.

On this night, March 13, 1995, he had been ordered in writing by his department chair to clear up what appeared to be suspicious data.

But Friedman didn't clear things up.

"I did something which was the worst possible thing I could have done," he testified.

He went to the medical record room, and for the next three or four hours he pulled out permanent medical files of a handful of patients. Then, covered up his lies, scribbling in the information he needed to support his study.

"I created data. I made it up. I also made up patients that were fictitious," he testified.

Friedman's wife met him at the door when he came home that night. He wept uncontrollably. The next morning he had an emergency appointment with his psychiatrist.

But he didn't tell the therapist the truth, and his lies continued for 10 more days, during which time he delivered a letter, and copies of the doctored files, to his boss. Eventually he broke down, admitting first to his wife and psychiatrist, and later to his colleagues and managers, what he had been doing.

Friedman formally confessed, retracted his articles, apologized to colleagues and was punished. Today he has resurrected his career, as senior director of clinical research at Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., a Johnson & Johnson company.

He refused to speak with the Associated Press. But his case, recorded in a seven-foot-high stack of documents at the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, tells a story of one man's struggle with power, lies and the crushing pressure of academia.

Some other cases have made headlines:

-On July 18, Eric Poehlman, once a prominent nutrition researcher, will be sentenced in federal court in Vermont for fabricating research data to obtain a $542,000 federal grant while working as a professor at the University of Vermont College of Medicine. He faces up to five years in prison. Poehlman, 49, made up research between 1992 and 2000 on issues like menopause, aging and hormone supplements to win millions of dollars in grant money from the federal government. He is the first researcher to be permanently barred from ever receiving federal research grants again.

In 2001, while he was being investigated, Poehlman left the medical school and was awarded a $1 million chair in nutrition and metabolism at the University of Montreal, where officials say they were unaware of his problems. He resigned in January when his contract expired.

-In March, Dr. Gary Kammer, a Wake Forest University rheumatology professor and leading lupus expert, was found to have made up two families and their medical conditions in grant applications to the National Institutes of Health. He has resigned from the university and has been suspended from receiving federal grants for three years.

-In November, 2004, federal officials found that Dr. Ali Sultan, an award-winning malaria researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, had plagiarized text and figures, and falsified his data - substituting results from one type of malaria for another - on a grant application for federal funds to study malaria drugs. When brought before an inquiry committee, Sultan tried to pin the blame on a postdoctoral student. Sultan resigned and is now a faculty member at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, according to a spokeswoman there.

While the cases are high-profile, scientists have been cheating for decades.

In 1974, Dr. William Summerlin, a top-ranking Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute researcher, used a marker to make black patches of fur on white mice in an attempt to prove his new skin graft technique was working.

His case prompted Al Gore, then a young Democratic congressman from Tennessee, to hold the first congressional hearings on the issue.

"At the base of our involvement in research lies the trust of American people and the integrity of the scientific exercise," said Gore at the time. As a result of their hearings, Congress passed a law in 1985 requiring institutions that receive federal money for scientific research to have some system to report rulebreakers.

"Often we're confronted with people who are brilliant, absolutely incredible researchers, but that's not what makes them great scientists. It's the character," said Debbi Gilad, a research compliance and integrity officer at the University of California, Davis, which has taken a lead on handling scientific misconduct.

David Wright, a Michigan State University professor who has researched why scientists cheat, said there are four basic reasons: some sort of mental disorder; foreign nationals who learned somewhat different scientific standards; inadequate mentoring; and, most commonly, tremendous and increasing professional pressure to publish studies.

His inability to handle that pressure, Friedman testified, was his downfall.

"And it was almost as though you're on a treadmill that starts out slowly and gradually increases in speed. And it happens so gradually you don't realize that eventually you're just hoping you don't fall off," he told a magistrate during a state hearing in 1995. "You're sprinting near the end and taking it all you can not to fall off."

At the time he started cheating, Friedman was in his late 30s, married and a father of two young children. Following the path of his father, grandfather and uncle who were all doctors and medical researchers, he was an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School and chief of the department of reproductive endocrinology at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

His reputation was tremendous and his work groundbreaking. His 30-page resume highlighted numerous awards and honors, lectures in Canada, Europe and Australia, and more than 150 articles, book chapters, reviews and abstracts. Of those, 58 were original research articles, where he had designed studies, conducted clinical trials, enrolled patients, collected and analyzed data and made conclusions.

In the end, investigators found - and Friedman confessed - to making up information for three separate journal articles (one of them never published) involving hormonal treatment of gynecological conditions.

He testified that he was working 80 to 90 hours a week, seeing patients two days a week, doing surgery one day a week, supervising medical residents, serving on as many as 10 different committees at the hospital and the medical school and putting on national medical conferences.

He did seek help, both from a psychiatrist, who counseled him to cut back, and from his boss, who demanded Friedman increase his research and refused to reduce Friedman's patient load.

As good as Friedman was as a doctor, surgeon and researcher, he was actually a lousy cheater. One thing that brought about his demise, in fact, was that the initials he used for fictitious patients were the same as those of residents and faculty members in his program.

Unlike many scientists who file immediate lawsuits when they're caught, Friedman was repentant, resigning from his positions at both Brigham and Women's, and Harvard.

In 1996, Friedman agreed to be excluded for three years from working on federally funded research. During the next three years he consulted with drug companies, he paid a $10,000 fine to the state of Massachusetts and surrendered his medical license for a year, became very active with the American Red Cross, donating more than 500 hours, and attended several lectures on ethics and record-keeping.

"Andy can never undo the damage that his actions have caused. However, he has paid the price - his academic career is ruined, his reputation sullied, and his personal shame unremitting," wrote Dr. Charles Lockwood, then chair of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of Medicine, in a letter on Friedman's behalf.

In 1999, after successfully petitioning to get his license reinstated, he went to work as director of women's health care at Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals. The job, which he still has, involves designing and reviewing clinical trials for hormonal birth control, writing package insert labels and lecturing to doctors. Lately he's appeared on television and in newspaper articles responding to concerns about the safety of the birth control patch.

Mary Anne Wyatt, a retired biochemist in Natick, Mass., is one of several former patients.

"I think it's not at all surprising that a drug company would hire somebody who is very comfortable with hiding the effects of very dangerous drugs," said Wyatt, who unsuccessfully sued him.

Ortho-McNeil spokeswoman Bonnie Jacobs said the company was well aware of Friedman's history when it hired him. "He is an excellent doctor, an asset to our company," she said.
--------------------------------------------
Allegations of Fake Research Hit New High
By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer
July 11, 2005


Link
 
Last edited:
here we see the sad trade-off between integrity and success... I believe it has to do with the misplaced idea that unsuccessful research does not have to be published. It places the focus on successful research only, because it is the only thing that is made public. The focus should be on the research itself and not its possible outcomes.
 
I have no sympathy for these "brilliant" academics.
Pressures of academic research ? Long hours ? Family Matters ? Yeah join the club, that is a pathetic excuse for faking something as important as medical research.

What I find appaling is that most of these people, will find employment with flying colours in the corporate world, in fact , succesfully faking a study result may look like bonus marks on their resume to a potential employer.

I've said this countless times , when medical proffesion and pharmaceutical industry is driven by economic profts and greed, that system is bound to have serious negative impact on the mass population.

We can only guess , apart from already proven botched Ricature study , how many crappy, fake or misguided studies have been published and taken as "fact" by anti drug lobbyists and governments.

:|
 
^ I don't think you know what its like. Working in academia is pretty wacked. If you quit academia, and go work in the private sector, you're doing 9-5, and all that matters is that you finish the shit that you're given. You get payed twice you get as an acedemic, and you get everything paid for you.

You're mixing up semi-public research and private sector research. If your an acedemic you've got a teaching load, you've got Research to do, research to get funding for, research to get ethical approval for, and then at the end of that, you have some snootey fuck wit, who hasn't even read your article, "peer-reviewing" it. You get paid jack-shit in comparison to what you can get paid else where, the only bonus is that you can eventually try and push your science in the direction you want to take it.

Now while I don't think that is any excuse to fake research, just saying "tough shit" is a little mis-guided.
 
i really do believe there is alot more dishonesty occuring in gov't funded reasearch than anywhere else. the US government gives money to researchers who support their ideology. they'd never give a dime to someone who might come out with a study suggesting any benefits from recreational drug use, despite the fact that there are many well known benefits to several different drugs.
 
At the core of all this is greed; not by the researchers, but by the people handling the money/grant for this research

He did seek help, both from a psychiatrist, who counseled him to cut back, and from his boss, who demanded Friedman increase his research and refused to reduce Friedman's patient load.

Get results, make money. As easy-e said, unsuccessful research also answers questions (by disproving theories), but as that generally doesn't result in something that can be used to make money, the pressure is always for successful research.

The money factor is also the reson behind the reduction in theoretical, as opposed to applied research (even though today's theoretical research can be the basis of tomorrow's applied research).
 
Well I just thought I'd say in the aerospace research business, we are under similar pressures yet we can't get away with such bullshit. When you have a test article that has to fly safely, it has to fly safely. You can't pretend it flew safely when it didn't. But medical research is a bit more subjective. You can fuck with your observation methods and fuck with your results because they aren't so out in the open. You'll never get rid of greed, but you can have checks and balances which we don't have in medical research.
 
BilZ0r said:

You're mixing up semi-public research and private sector research. If your an academic you've got a teaching load, you've got Research to do, research to get funding for, research to get ethical approval for, and then at the end of that, you have some snootey fuck wit, who hasn't even read your article, "peer-reviewing" it. You get paid jack-shit in comparison to what you can get paid else where, the only bonus is that you can eventually try and push your science in the direction you want to take it.

About the peer-reviewing thing: it doesn't work that way. Peer-reviewers don't get paid and they can't reveal who they are, so the only reason they do it is because they can uphold the standards of research. Peer-reviewing is not like a book or cd review in a magazine.
 
easy e said:
here we see the sad trade-off between integrity and success... I believe it has to do with the misplaced idea that unsuccessful research does not have to be published. It places the focus on successful research only, because it is the only thing that is made public. The focus should be on the research itself and not its possible outcomes.

Reminds me EXACTLY of Robbin William's line in the first scene of Awakenings (1990, Williams, Robert DeNiero):


Interviewing doc: "You did that study? But it's well-known that fruit flies can't do that!"

Dr. Sachs (Robert Williams): "I know! I'm the one who proved that! I used 6,000 fruitflies to do it!"

=D
 
day_for_night said:
i really do believe there is alot more dishonesty occuring in gov't funded reasearch than anywhere else. the US government gives money to researchers who support their ideology. they'd never give a dime to someone who might come out with a study suggesting any benefits from recreational drug use, despite the fact that there are many well known benefits to several different drugs.

It is quite true that the National Institute of Drug Abuse, NIDA, is highly misguided in its research practices and conclusions... claiming you get holes in your brain from MDMA is a little preposterous.

It also takes advantage of a scientifically illiterate public, since no neurologist takes any study that pretends neuroscience technology is advanced enough to know much from an functional MRI (fMRI). That, and it used nonhuman primates, even if it was properly conducted.

That said, along with my angst against the National Institutes of Mental Health giving fewer than 1% of its $1 billion to the three most severe mental disorders psychiatry confronts: Schiztophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, and Depression, your statement doesn't make sense whatsoever.

"BENEFITS FROM RECREATIONAL USE." You mean "THERAPEUTIC BENEFITS" from "RECREATIONAL USE"?

It's either recreational or therapeutic, sorry to disappoint. It's not an idealogical thing-- it's a rational thing, a scientific literacy issue.

I take d-desoxyephederine, for instance. It's also referred to as "methamphetamine HCL." (Since I get the brand name, it's simply Desoxyn to my pharmacist unless they look at their computer).

I take it for ADD, I don't get euphoria, and therefore don't take it for recreational purposes. I take it strictly for therapeutic purposes, it makes me feel agitated at times, anxious, I need Klonopin just to ease me up, and makes me feel like shit. 99% of people who take "METH" take it for no therapeutic value whatsoever.

I did experience euphoria as a side effect at a certain dose once early back when I first went on it, and it was pleasant, but I have to say it was a goofy high. It's the exact opposite of what I need to feel like to do boring school work--- completely anxious and ill at ease as f*ck.

And many of you take this shit for kicks.

I can't judge, but keep in mind don't compare me to you. The people making this stuff aren't typically kids who you took accelerated chem classes in school with, and you honestly don't want to know the crap they use to make it without getting on the DEA's radar screen.

So don't go there. Please. I don't like ADD, lots you have it, lots of you think meth or other amphetamines are cute, and yeah, more power to you. Keep in mind most meth is a combination of d,l amphetamine along with d-methamphetamine, so thinking you're taking the same thing that's sold at a pharmacy is BEYOND absurd.

Abbott Labs had a guy perfect the production process from 1944 to the late 1960's, and that's all he did. What most people call "meth" is more or less distilled battery acid, if you're lucky. Convinced you're an expert chemist so good you make it just as well? It's impossible, since the DEA doesn't let anyone touch the precursors the pharma-grade makers get.
 
Top