Allegations of Fake Research Hit New High

[Steven Edwards]

Allegations of Fake Research Hit New High

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.)

Dr. Young, are you aware of any similar problems in SCI research?

[Wise Young]

Steven,

Medline contains 615,857 scientific articles in 2004 and lists 339,635 for 2005 so far. Of these, 1641 and 785 articles respectively have the keywords of "spinal cord injury". It is sad of course that there has been an increase in the number of misconduct allegations but the fact that there are only 274 cases reported to the NIH in 2004 and only 8 individuals have shown to be guilty of scientific misconduct that year (despite a staff of 28 and a budget of $7 million per year at NIH devoted to investigating these cases) so far suggests that the peer-review process has been remarkably effective. Can you think of any field of human endeavor where there have been so few cases of documented misconduct?

Wise.

[Steven Edwards]

Dr. Young,

I did not mean for this to be a negative thread or to say researchers have done bad. Someone asked me to post it for them and I did.

In your experience reviewing articles for journals, do articles get submitted often that appear to be plagiarised?

I think the Peer Review process is extremely effective, but you never really know anything about what gets rejected and why unless you're on the review commitee.

[bill1938]

These people are well educated, trusted professionals. They call it scientific misconduct? I call it lying, cheating and stealing and they should lose their licence or be jailed.
These researchers are the only ones exposed. How many more are there?

Bill M.

[bigbob]

This subject got me looking into medical misconduct and if you look at number (4 ) I wonder if Dr.Frist or Weldon has broke the code. Of course they will refer to number (3)

1. I solemnly pledge myself to consecrate my life to service humanity.

2. Even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.

3. I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception.

4. I will not permit consideration of religion, nationality, race party politics of social standing to intervene my duty and my patient.

5. I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity.

6. The health of my patients will by my first consideration.

7. I will respect the secrets, which are confirmed in me.

8. I will give to my teacher the respects and gratitude which is their due.

9. I will maintain by all means in my power, the honor and noble traditions of medical profession.

10. I will treat my colleagues with all respect and dignity.

11. I shall abide by the code of medical ethics as enunciated in the Indian Medical Council (professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002.

12. I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor.

Place: -

Date: -

Signature

(Name)

The medical man has to affix his signature at the time of registration and also to affirm, “I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honor”. source

[bigbob]

Originally Posted by Wise Young

Steven,

Medline contains 615,857 scientific articles in 2004 and lists 339,635 for 2005 so far. Of these, 1641 and 785 articles respectively have the keywords of "spinal cord injury". It is sad of course that there has been an increase in the number of misconduct allegations but the fact that there are only 274 cases reported to the NIH in 2004 and only 8 individuals have shown to be guilty of scientific misconduct that year (despite a staff of 28 and a budget of $7 million per year at NIH devoted to investigating these cases) so far suggests that the peer-review process has been remarkably effective. Can you think of any field of human endeavor where there have been so few cases of documented misconduct?

Wise.

Remarkably effective
As far as what? the article said because of the great number of misconduct cases they were only able to find 8 guilty cause they didn't have enough time to go through them all yet.

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.

8 out of 23 cases is pretty high!!!!!!!!!!

[bigbob]

What goes?

[Max]

Allegations of fake research reach new highs in United States

10/07/2005 3:30:00 PM

Printer-friendly page

(AP) - 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 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 records 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.



http://healthandfitness.sympatico.ms...etect=&abc=abc

[Max]

I think those who did fake research on public/federal grants should be prosecuted & stripped of tenures/even pay fines & do time -like Worldcom guy or Martha Steward......

And we still mistrust Albert Bohbot, Russians (Brukhovetski, Rabinovich), South Koreans (unbillical cord trials)-just because they unable to publish/satify Vigorous Us medical establishment or unable to find some powerfull -well connected US Recearcher (as co-author ) to help them

[bigbob]

Max, I feel your anger.

Why these researchers so greedy?

Why they got buddy system where they protect each other?

When they do that they hurt us.

Like brillant scientist didn't understand facts and forgot that they only did 23 hearings out of 274. No wonder they only found 8 guilty. I feel betrayed. Seems like some researchers lobby for their profession while they claim to have our best interests at heart. To that I say, its time to do our own advocacy. But hey, I'm a rock thrower. No need to pay any attention to me.