Archive for the ‘scientific misconduct’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

When plagiarism is not plagiarism: University of Peshawar allows 19% plagiarism to protect plagiarising Vice Chancellor

August 26, 2011

When plagiarism is not plagiarism

The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Peshawar,  Dr Azmat Hayat Khan was found guilty of plagiarism by a three-member committee of the Higher Education Commission that was constituted to probe the matter. The Higher Education Commission had submitted its report to the Governor of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa who is also the Chancellor of the university.

For apparently political reasons, no action has so far been taken against the Vice Chancellor. Instead the University went on the attack. First they attacked the complainant, Mohammad Zubair, an assistant professor at the UoP Law College. They  suspended him and have now dismissed him and are going through a paper exercise to strip him of his law degree. Now they have attacked the Higher Education Commission for finding their beloved Vice Chancellor guilty. The defence of the Vice Chancellor is ingenious. First they have objected to the procedures followed by the Commission in not interrogating the Vice Chancellor. Since they felt this argument was probably a little weak they then redefined plagiarism so that the Vice Chancellor’s plagiarism was no longer plagiarism!!

The University has effectively created a Cheaters Charter. It has reinvented and redefined a plagiarism “threshold” of allowable copying as being 19% for scholarly articles and 25% for theses. And since – they claim – the Vice Chancellor only cheated to the extent of copying 18% of his book from others – what he did was not plagiarism!!

From being a case of the Vice Chancellor’s plagiarism this has now escalated to become a case of blatant corruption at the highest levels of the University and not excluding the Chancellor – who is of course merely taking a political position as the Governor of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.

The ethical standards of the University of Peshawar are beginning to stink.

Pakistan Today reports:

The University of Peshawar issued a clarification on a news item pertaining to plagiarism stating certain elements from a political group were involved. …. 

The HEC thus already had jumped to conclusions without inquiring into the matter which shows a partial approach and mala fide intentions. This in fact was the only inquiry in history in which the author under investigation was not called before the committee. The plagiarism policy of HEC point number eight section“E“ clearly reads that the author under investigation must be provided opportunity to justify the originality of their concepts. …..

The HEC Plagiarism policy states plagiarism cases be dealt by respective universities and the threshold is setup by the concerned University in light of the Quality Assurance guidelines of HEC. The percentage of allowed threshold decided by meeting of the Advance Studies and Research Board of University of Peshawar in light of HEC Quality Assurance guidelines, in its meeting held on 25/11/2009 was 19% allowed matching (threshold) for published research articles and 25% for thesis.
The plagiarism allegations against the Vice Chancellor were looked in HEC recommended software and the result was shown to be 18%. This is the same software which is being used all over the country and by HEC. The same document was checked manually and the matching percentage of Kulwant Kaur Book “Pak Afghan relations” to that of Dr Azmat Hayat Khan book was 17%.  …….

The press release stated the case was in court and an unbiased decision would be issued because the author would get a chance to explain his point of view and the facts of the matter. It said the University of Peshawar considered the HEC’s recommendation of a penalty and the press conference organized by them as contempt of court (against PHC decision) and will take the case to legal corners. It claims that the victimizing campaign is spear-headed by Zubair Mehsud. The press release denied Zubair was being targeted, as claimed by a newsreport, for raising his voice against the VC.
The press release said ex-Law College faculty member Zubair had been terminated for engaging in political activities against the VC’s directives and the used of defamatory language when issued show cause notice to explain his position on the matter.

But the demands on the Governor to replace the tainted Vice Chancellor are continuing to grow.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Corruption, Education, Ethics, Pakistan, Politics, scientific misconduct | 2 Comments »

University of Peshawar turns vindictive against plagiarism complainant

August 26, 2011

An earlier post reported that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Peshawar,  Dr Azmat Hayat Khan had been found guilty of plagiarism by a three-member committee of the Higher Education Commission that was constituted to probe the matter. The complainant, Mohammad Zubair, an assistant professor at the UoP Law College was suspended by the University. Now Noor Aftab at The News reports that the actions against Zubair have turned nasty and the University is trying to cancel his degree in retaliation:

A teacher who raised voice against alleged plagiarism by the Vice Chancellor of University of Peshawar now himself faces hard times , as somewhat controversial internal Fact Finding Inquiry Committee, constituted to probe authenticity of his own LLM degree, has recommended cancelling his degree. ….

….  Assistant Professor Muhammad Zubair said he approached HEC on March 10 and Governor House on March 16 this year to raise issue of plagiarism by the University of Peshawar vice chancellor. “The university administration got infuriated over it and an inquiry was launched on March 17 and I was suspended on March 20 to mute my voice against illegal act of the University of Peshawar vice chancellor”, he said.

Some small hope for Zubair lies in that the Civil Society has started a movement against the plagiarism of the Vice Chancellor Dr Azmat Hayat Khan, reports Pakistan Today.

After the alleged involvement of University of Peshawar (UoP) Vice Chancellor Azmat Hayat Khan in plagiarism, the Joint Action Committee of Civil Society against Plagiarism on Thursday announced to launch ‘Save Peshawar University’ movement to stop any such future incidents. Idrees Kamal, Dr Syed Alam Mehsood and office bearers of other civil societies told a press conference that plagiarism was not only an academic dishonesty but it also challenged the moral norms of the society. …

The committee said that ‘zero tolerance for plagiarism’ was the slogan often raised on various literary platforms. The Supreme Court chief justice termed literary plagiarism as a legally punishable crime, it added. 
Idrees Kamal and Dr Syed Alam Mehsood expressed their disapproval of the relevant authorities’ negligence in the matter. “Azmat Hayat (Khan) is still enjoying the office and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa governor is a silent spectator”, they said, adding that if the vice chancellor was allowed to continue as head of UoP it would be a disgrace and the university might get blacklisted internationally.

But I am very pessimistic about  Zubair’s prospects. He is fighting a losing battle against a powerful establishment and he will likely have his law degree cancelled. Whether civil society in Pakistan can or will mobilise itself sufficiently to make any difference, either in protecting him or in having any sanctions levied against the plagiarising Vice Chancellor, is is very doubtful. Zubair does seem to have some support in society and at least in one newspaper but the blogosphere is probably not sufficiently developed or influential in Pakistan to have much impact.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Education, Ethics, Pakistan, scientific misconduct | 2 Comments »

Medtronic pays 5 surgeons $7m kickbacks in just 9 months: The rape of Medicare

August 21, 2011

The Medtronic story is not just about ghost- writing and paying for favourable peer-reviewed scientific papers and supporting researchers to the tune of millions but it is also about all the surgeons in their pocket and how they exploit and “rape” Medicare.

Earl Stevens writes:

Norton Hospital in Louisville, Ky., may not be a household name nationally. But five senior spine surgeons have helped put it on the map in at least one category: From 2004 to 2008, Norton performed the third-most spinal fusions on Medicare patients in the country.

The five surgeons are also among the largest recipients nationwide of payments from medical-device giant Medtronic Inc. In the first nine months of this year alone, the surgeons — Steven Glassman, Mitchell Campbell, John Johnson, John Dimar and Rolando Puno — received more than $7 million from the Fridley, Minn., company. Medtronic and the surgeons say the payments are mostly royalties they earned for helping the company design one of its best-selling spine products.

Corporate whistleblowers and congressional critics contend such arrangements—which are common in orthopedic surgery—amount to kickbacks to stoke sales of medical devices. They argue that the overuse of surgical hardware ranging from heart stents to artificial hips is a big factor behind the soaring costs of Medicare, the government medical-insurance system for the elderly and disabled. ….

Using a Medicare database that tracks hospitals’ billing, The Wall Street Journal was able to ascertain that Norton is among the most aggressive practitioners of spinal fusion in the country.

Spinal fusion has become one of medicine’s most controversial procedures. It involves fusing together two or more vertebrae to alleviate back pain, usually with the help of metal plates, rods and screws implanted in the patient’s back. Tens of thousands of dollars of hardware can go into a single surgery. ….. Conservative spine surgeons argue that a spinal fusion is appropriate only for a small number of conditions, such as spinal instability, spinal fracture or a severe curvature of the spine known as scoliosis, and that financial incentives have caused the procedure to become overused. …

One health insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, announced in September that it would stop paying for spine fusions performed on such patients beginning on Jan. 1. The insurer said that the procedures are “considered not medically necessary.” …

Some recent studies have suggested poor outcomes for spinal fusion.

So much for the Hippocratc Oath which requires “prescribing regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never doing harm to anyone“.

Related: Medtronics and others – “supporting doctors with multi – million dollar payments”  

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Business, Ethics, Medicine, scientific misconduct | Comments Off on Medtronic pays 5 surgeons $7m kickbacks in just 9 months: The rape of Medicare

University of Utah fires tenured Bakhtiari for a “pattern of plagiarism”

August 20, 2011

I  just returned from a few days in Vienna and the Ruhr Valley – a region which is no stranger to political high intrigue and deception and I am just catching up with some of my backlog.

Salt Lake City has had its share of intrigue in the past but the latest is the firing of Utah University’s tenured Director of its Middle East Centre, Dr. Bahman Bakhthiari:

A faculty panel substantiated nine instances of plagiarism by former University of Utah political scientist Bahman Bakhtiari, who directed the Middle East Center from July 2009 until February 2011. The materials include five book chapters, his doctoral dissertation and three opinion commentaries. Bakhtiari says the plagiarism was due to carelessness. The U. administration terminated Bakhtiari against the recommendation of the panel, which proposed lesser sanctions.

Bahman Bakhtiari

Bahman Bakhtiari

The university interim President, Lorris Betz,  overruled the panel recommendations writing in a June 30th letter:

“Plagiarism — holding out the work of another as one’s own — strikes at the very core of academic integrity. …. The only appropriate sanction in this case is dismissal, which is necessary to preserve the academic integrity of the institution and to restore public confidence in the university.” 

I have always wondered why “political scientists” are so-called and the use of the word “artist” – as used in “con-artist” – may be much more appropriate for “scholars” dabbling in the black-arts.

Lorris Betz

Needless to say, Bakhtiari sees a certain level of political connivance against him says the Salt Lake Tribune

Bakhtiari, whose name also appears in print as “Baktiari,” maintains the overlap between his work and that of others was not intentional. He says his firing represents an unwarranted intrusion by administration into faculty governance. The Iranian-born scholar also alleges he is the victim of discrimination perpetrated by a “pro-Arabist faction” within the MEC.

 Bakhtiari defended his integrity, arguing that he has produced 3,500 pages of scholarly material with 14,000 footnotes over the course of his career and the panel found problems with only eight pages. Twelve diplomats and prominent scholars, including Gary Sick and Judith Yaphe, from around the world submitted letters vouching for his character.

“It is not a pattern when you have published 90 articles,” Bakhtiari said.

In a letter to Betz asking him to limit the sanction to a private reprimand, Bakhtiari’s lawyer Christopher Finley said no evidence was presented to suggest the political scientist’s mistakes were motivated by a desire to take credit for others’ original work or that these mistakes harmed the university. 

In fact he may well be right because the case of administrative “clerks” – even if holding high rank – over-ruling an academic finding is rare – but not unknown for political reasons (as with hospital administrators firing doctors from time to time). Nevertheless Bakhtiari was clearly not good enough at the game of political intrigue which – after all – should have been his speciality. He seems to have made elementary errors of money management and political judgement. Exhausting all the money available must have been a red rag to the administrative bulls.

The plagiarism probe focused mostly on materials Bakhtiari submitted to the U. when he applied for a tenured position two years ago, according to the U. documents. At that time he was director of the University of Maine’s School of Policy and International Affairs.

In his defense to the panel, Bakhtiari conceded he made “mistakes” and was “sloppy,” but denied he intentionally copied, despite “convincing evidence” that his work borrowed whole sentences and paragraphs from other sources with no attribution, according to the June 14 CHC report. His defense focused on the history of “internecine strife” plaguing the Middle East Center and the “derelictions” of his former U. colleagues, alleging one professor concealed his lack of a doctorate for decades but was not fired.

The faculty panel acknowledged Bakhtiari faced “extreme hardship” trying to right the center, but pointed out that much of the documented plagiarism occurred long before he arrived in Salt Lake City. Noting it reached its conclusions with “great sadness,” the panel by a 3-2 vote recommended a public reprimand, six-month suspension without pay, transfer out of the College of Humanities and “retraction” of the offending publications. ….

The case against Bakhtiari was based on a March 7 complaint filed by four professors and humanities dean Robert Newman, who hired Bakhtiari with the hope of revitalizing the Middle East Center in the wake of a leadership shake-up. This group was particularly incensed with Bakhtiari for inserting two paragraphs — taken verbatim from a speech delivered by National Endowment for the Humanities Chairman Jim Leach — with no attribution into a conference proposal prepared by students. … 

In February, U. graduate students first uncovered passages in Bakhtiari’s published work, starting with an opinion piece in The Tribune that appeared to contain unattributed material from others’ work. Around that time, an audit revealed that the center had exhausted its financial resources under Bakhtiari’s leadership.

Newman placed Bakhtiari on paid administrative leave in February, took over the center’s fiscal affairs and initiated an investigation. This probe documented 11 instances of suspected plagiarism, including material used in his course syllabus, book chapters, the MEC newsletter and commentaries. It discovered eight pages of Bakhtiari’s 1984 dissertation at the University of Virginia, which awarded his doctorate, contained passages that had been pulled from five other sources without attribution.

The faculty panel substantiated nine of these instances, but concluded sanctions weren’t warranted for the copying apparent in the conference proposal and course syllabus.

Meanwhile, the University of Maine, where Bakhtiari taught when he wrote most of the material found to be plagiarized, will review his work according to spokesman Joseph Carr.

But still cases of tenured staff being fired from US Universities are exceptional and very rare. When it does happen a “resignation” is usually engineered (as in the case of Marc Hauser).

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Ethics, Politics, scientific misconduct, Universities | 1 Comment »

Columbia University maintains a wall of silence around the Sezen – Sames case

August 15, 2011

The Bengü Sezen – Dalibor Sames scandal rumbles on while Columbia maintains a wall of silence around the case. But the silence raises suspicions. Sezen has been painted as and has appeared clearly as the villain in the piece but Dalibor Sames  – her supervisor – seems to be getting away with very little censure. What is especially disturbing is that three of his subordinates lost their positions for raising doubts about her work while he was rewarded with tenure during the same period. To that extent it does seem that some of the extreme rhetoric now being used against Sezen and the scathing “official” criticism of Sezen is “designed” – at least partially – to deflect questions and blame away from Sames. It seems inexplicable to me that Dalibor Sames can escape any responsibility or censure and is not to be held accountable for his part in the affaire. To take away his tenure would of course be an unacceptable precedent for Columbia and would be quite unthinkable! But even assuming – in the best case – that he had no part in the deception he does come across as being not only incompetent to supervise research by others but also as eminently gullible. In the worst case he could have been her Svengali.

Chemical & Engineering News carries a new comprehensive article by William Schulz about the case and Rudy Baum posts about Sezen, Sames and Columbia  in the Editors blog.

This week’s lead Science & Technology Department story by C&EN News Editor William G. Schulz is a devastating account of systematic scientific fraud committed by former Columbia University chemistry graduate student Bengü Sezen. Schulz has been following the Sezen case since her work was called into question and Columbia began an investigation of it in 2006.

Sezen worked under the direction of Dalibor Sames from 2000 to 2005. Sames was an assistant chemistry professor when Sezen joined his group; he received tenure at Columbia in 2003. During her time in Sames’ lab, Sezen was the lead author on three papers published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, all of which Sames retracted in 2006 after the results reported in the papers were called into question because no one could reproduce them (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2006, 128, 8364). Sezen received her Ph.D. in 2005; Columbia revoked it earlier this year. …

But what of Sames? Questions about Sezen’s research were raised by other members of Sames’ group as early as 2002, Schulz reports. Those questions weren’t just ignored by Sames; those who raised them were punished. “At least three unnamed subordinates left or were dismissed from the Sames lab, for example, for stepping forward and raising concerns about Sezen’s irreproducible research results,” Schulz writes. As the report makes clear, these whistle-blowers were sacrificed in order to maintain her favored status in the research group. Sames acted, in fact, only after a member of his group specifically set Sezen up and presented irrefutable evidence of her misconduct.

Columbia’s investigation focused exclusively on Sezen’s misconduct.  From the ORI report obtained by C&EN, it appears that Columbia has not made any attempt to probe whether Sames was guilty of scientific misconduct himself during Sezen’s time in his lab. 

Schulz writes in his excellent article:

Questions about the massive Bengü Sezen scientific fraud case at Columbia University linger in the August heat. But many of them will likely never be answered—especially the question, Why? Columbia in 2005 awarded her a Ph.D. degree in chemistry with distinction; however, it was based in large part on her fraudulent work. Details of the case make clear that Sezen, at the very least, has a sophisticated understanding of chemical principles. The effort she put into faking it and covering her tracks, say many people who have reviewed the case, easily match that required for legitimate doctoral work in science……. Sezen left Columbia shortly after receiving her chemistry degree and enrolled at Germany’s Heidelberg University, where she picked up another doctoral degree in molecular biology. But, with mounting questions about her chemistry thesis and published work—eventually to include retraction of research papers she coauthored with her professor, Dalibor Sames, on C–H bond functionalization—Columbia assembled an investigative committee to probe deeper. ….

As the evidence of her misconduct began to pile up, however, her attempts to explain away her actions became increasingly implausible. …. And then she was gone. Sezen’s whereabouts today are unknown. ……..

Columbia has erected a wall of silence around Sezen, her brazen fakery, and the consequences for those who had the misfortune of working with her. Aside from the few spare and prepared statements about her doctoral degree and the status of its misconduct investigation, the university has blotted out any mention of what happened inside the Sames laboratory between 2000 and 2005, when Sezen was a Ph.D. candidate. During this period, however, Sames was granted tenure.

Columbia has expressly forbidden Sames or any of its other employees from speaking publicly about the Sezen case. ……..

But it’s unclear what, if any, consequences Sames has suffered because of his failure to find out what might be going on with Sezen, especially when red flags about her work were raised so early on. A visit to the Sames group website today includes a photo of Sames and a slideshow of many young, enthusiastic, and smiling lab group members.

From the comments on the blog ChemBark it would seem that one of the commenters is Sezen herself and that she is still in Germany (or operating through an IP address from Germany). 

Related: The Sezen Files: Part1, Part2 and Part3

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Chemistry, Fraud, Scientific Fraud, scientific misconduct | Comments Off on Columbia University maintains a wall of silence around the Sezen – Sames case

Polargate: When peer review is degraded to spouse-review and friend-review

August 13, 2011

An earlier post carried the story of Charles Monnett who apparently when flying over the Arctic to survey whales thought he saw 3 or 4 dead polar bears in the water. He did not get any pictures and did not retrieve any carcases but instead wrote a paper  published in Polar Biology and which was supposedly peer-reviewed. He baldly presented his observations and then speculated that the bears had probably drowned in a storm and that many more of them would drown if global warming led to the melting of Arctic ice in the summers and forced  the poor polar bears to spend more time in open water.

It was all speculation even if one supposes that he actually saw some dead polar bears. His speculations were taken as established fact and blown up by the Global Warming orthodoxy. Al Gore, the almost -President of the US and the self-proclaimed inventor of the internet, picked up the story with gusto which then  played a major part in his science fantasy movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, which helped to win him a Nobel prize.

Panic over the dead bears and Monnett’s wild hypotheses about them helped fuel calls for declaring the bears endangered, despite all evidence that their populations have actually been increasing over the last few years.  Monnett did quite well from the work, parlaying his fame into management of a $50 million study budget, the dream of all academics. – Coyote Blog

Monnet is now being investigated by the Interior Department’s Inspector General’s office for some kind of wrong-doing associated with his award of research contracts which has also led to interrogations about his sightings and his paper and subsequent research grants. Investigators are apparently  examining Monnet’s procurement of one of those research studies on polar bears conducted by Canada’s University of Alberta, as well as the “disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work,” according to a July 29 memo from the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office.

In particular, investigators are asking questions about the peer review on Monnett’s drowned polar bear paper, which was done by his wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as by Andrew Derocher, the lead researcher on the  million dollar Canadian study funded by Monnet’s generosity.

Monnets co-author Jeffrey Gleason is back-pedalling and is in damage-control mode.

Although the four dead bears cited in the paper were observed from 1,500 feet during flights over the Beaufort Sea, and the carcasses were never recovered or examined, Gleason told investigators it is likely the creatures drowned in a sudden windstorm that produced 30-knot winds, not for lack of an ice pack.  
“We never mentioned global warming in the paper,” Gleason told the investigators.
 Gleason told investigators that reaction to his and Monnett’s paper was overblown and spun out of context.

Monnett is being legally defended by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility who have also demanded an investigation of the investigation. They should perhaps pick their causes a little more carefully. Even the New York Times  weighs in but tries to trivialise the impact of the wrong-doing. Though just how they take computer model results to be a  “broad array of evidence” that “polar bear populations — and the health of the planet — will be threatened by climate change in future decades” is just a bit mysterious if not plain gullible.

A modest scientific observation about a few drowning polar bears has enmeshed a government wildlife biologist in an investigation into whether he is guilty of scientific misconduct. The investigation has taken on symbolic importance in the debate over global warming. …… Whatever the ultimate verdict on Dr. Monnett, the controversy over his observations is a minor sideshow in the global warming debate. A broad array of evidence suggests that polar bear populations — and the health of the planet — will be threatened by climate change in future decades even if not a single additional polar bear drowns while swimming far from shore.

That peer-review is often corrupted is not new but Monnet must be congratulated on getting his wife and a “friend” to be the reviewers.

But the Journal Polar Biology has been silent. How were the reviewers chosen?

Monnets original paper is here : Observations of mortality associated with extended open-water swimming  by polar bears in the Arctic Beaufort Sea 


Tags:, , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Climate, Ethics, scientific misconduct | 5 Comments »

The Spine Journal takes on Medtronic and publication of questionable research

August 12, 2011

When medical researchers have financial ties – running into millions of dollars – with pharmaceutical or medical equipment companies, and then publish scientific, peer-reviewed papers which are to the financial benefit of these companies,  questions of scientific misconduct escalate to become questions of scientific fraud.

Medtronic is the world’s largest medical device company and Minnesota’s seventh-largest public company based on revenue, which totaled $15.93 billion for the fiscal year that ended April 29. Medtronic’s Infuse product is a bioengineered bone-growth protein that has been used in spinal fusion procedures for the past nine years and is used in about half of the 80,000 anterior lumbar fusion procedures performed every year in the United States.

According to Twin Cities Business, The Spine Journal recently published two articles about the product, one that claims the product may increase the risk of sterility in men, and another that claims that the product’s adverse effects were not reported in clinical research. Those effects reportedly include inflammation, back pain, infections, and potentially life-threatening complications. The Journal pointed out that researchers for 12 of the product’s 13 industry-sponsored studies had multimillion-dollar “financial associations” with Medtronic.

The Spine Journal seems to be on a crusade:

From the Nature News Blog:

The Spine Journal devoted its entire June issue – two clinical studies, two reviews, two commentaries and a scathing editorial – to picking apart Medtronic’s controversial bone growth treatment, Infuse. The drug, which is a recombinant form of the protein BMP-2, is used in some kinds of spinal fusion surgeries and racked up $900 million in sales last fiscal year, according to the New York Times.

Company-sponsored clinical trials for Infuse found no side effects directly linked to the drug. But a review and reanalysis of these studies published in Spine Journal found that the incidence of adverse events ranged from 10 to 50 percent, depending on the use. What’s more, the same review study, led by Eugene Carragee, of Stanford University School of Medicine in California, reports that the authors of the supporting studies had financial ties to Medtronic ranging from $560,000 to $23,500,000, with a median of $12 million to $16 million. In some cases, the authors of these studies did not disclose the full extent of their financial relationships with Medtronic.

“A consistent number of people involved with these studies got extraordinary sums,” Carragee told the Times.

Side effects of the drug include cancer, fertility problems, infections, dissolving bone, and leg and back pain. According to the Times, Medtronic reported the side effects to the US Food and Drug Administration, as required.

In response to the Spine Journal articles, Medtronic CEO Omar Ishrak issued a  statement  that said: “While the Spine Journal articles raise questions about researchers’ conclusions in their published peer-reviewed literature, the articles do not raise questions about the data Medtronic submitted to the FDA in the approval process or the information available to physicians today through the instructions for use brochure attached to each product sold.”

The US Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into whether Medtronic illegally promoted Infuse for “off-label” applications not approved by the FDA, the Times reports.

 

The American Society of Business Publication Editors have acknowledged the efforts of the Spine Journal and awarded them the 2011 “Journalism That Matters” award. From the New York Times Media Decoder blog:

In June, the publication, The Spine Journal, devoted an entire issue to editorials and reports that challenged previous medical studies supporting the safety and effectiveness of Infuse, a bone-growth product sold by Medtronic. The product, a bioengineered material, is used mainly in spinal fusions.

The Spine Journal charged that academic experts paid by Medtronic to conduct earlier research about Infuse had issued biased and misleading results that overstated the product’s benefits and claimed that it did not pose risks.

On Friday, the American Society of Business Publication Editors celebrated the journal’s effort by presenting it with its 2011 “Journalism That Matters” award, an honor given in recognition of coverage that causes change by government or industry.

It is highly unusual for one group of researchers to publicly repudiate the work of professional colleagues. And by throwing down its challenge, the special issue of The Spine Journal, which is the official journal of the North American Spine Society, was something of a turning point in the debate over conflicts of interest in research paid for by makers of medical products.

Medtronic is on the defensive and is conducting a damage limitation exercise:

But there is little doubt that The Spine Journal’s coverage has had an effect. Last week, Medtronic took the unusual step of announcing that it was giving a $2.5 million grant to Yale so that independent researchers could conduct a broad review of all Infuse studies in order to determine the facts. 

Related:

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110731/BUSINESS/307310070/Norton-pair-accused-hiding-risks-spine-drug?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Local%20News

http://beckersorthopedicandspine.com/spine/item/8901-two-more-spine-surgeons-cited-for-underreporting-infuse-complications

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/new-health/paul-taylor/medtronic-pledges-independent-review-of-bone-graft-product/article2119735/

 

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Corruption, Ethics, Media, Medicine, Scientific Fraud, scientific misconduct | 3 Comments »

McGill University reprimands Professor for medical ghostwriting

August 11, 2011

Something stinks when academics are “helped” to write their papers by professional ghostwriters who are paid for by pharmaceutical companies. It is even worse when the papers are written by the pharmaceutical companies  and academics in the field are flattered or otherwise persuaded by their agents to put their names to the papers. McGill University has “reprimanded” a senior professor, Barbara Sherwin, for the practice but are at pains to point out that she has not been “sanctioned”.

What exactly does a reprimand – which is no sanction – accomplish?

The ghostwriting for what was ostensibly a peer-reviewed scientific article was essentially just promotional literature for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals’ and hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Wyeth paid a New Jersey professional-writing firm, DesignWrite, to help Sherwin produce a paper on treatment options for age associated memory loss that was eventually published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. The paper was published in 2000. Sherwin was listed as the sole author of that paper, even though Karen Mittleman, an employee of DesignWrite, was involved in the process. The paper was published just when critics started raising doubts about hormone-replacement therapy.

Wyeth – through DesignWrite – had commissioned at least 40 scientific papers endorsing the therapy. During 2001, Wyeth sold hormones for HRT worth $2.1 billion.

Apparently Dr. Sherwin is no longer a member of the Quebec Order of Psychologists, which means she can no longer practice under the title of psychologist.

The Montreal Gazette has the full story.

Even more worrying is the Macleans story that Karen Mittleman of DesignWrite – on behalf of Wyeth – actually solicited this paper. There is also a hint of a rather cozy relationship between the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society and DesignWrite.

The stink is more of a stench!

Her alleged transgression came to light in a class-action suit involving 8,400 women against the drug company Wyeth (now part of Pfizer). Lawyers representing the women, who claim they were harmed by their hormone replacement therapy (HRT) drugs, discovered that scientific research papers extolling the virtues of the treatment while downplaying potential harm appeared to have been written, not by the academics who signed their name to the papers, but by writers hired by the pharmaceutical company.
According to court documents filed by the plaintiffs, Wyeth paid the Princeton, New Jersey-based medical communications company DesignWrite to produce articles on HRT for publication in academic journals between 1997 and 2003. DesignWrite would write the papers, then approach leading academics to claim authorship for them.

Sherwin’s relationship with the pharmaceutical company started innocently enough. In the early 1990s, she was invited to give a presentation about her work on androgens and psychological functioning in women. There, she met a woman named Karen Mittleman during the lunch break. Mittleman introduced herself as a PhD and a former academic who worked in medical communications. The pair hit it off, and kept in touch. “I liked her, and considered her a casual friend,” Sherwin told Maclean’s over the phone from her office at McGill.
Several years later, in 1998, Mittleman called Sherwin to ask if she wanted to write a paper for the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society at the invitation of the journal’s editor. The subject was pharmacological treatment options for age-associated memory loss. Sherwin, an expert on hormones and how they influence memory and mood in people, had just completed a grant proposal on the subject, and said she’d be happy to write the article. 
“[Mittleman] told me she would provide support by typing the manuscript and formatting it in the style of that particular journal,” explains Sherwin. The work itself would be based on Sherwin’s notes. In return, Mittleman, a senior writer at DesignWrite, promised to send Sherwin typed drafts for editing, and hard copies of references the professor requested. “I was completely under the impression that [Mittleman] was working for the journal, that it was the journal who hired her.” 

What Mittleman never revealed was that her employer, DesignWrite, had a business relationship with Wyeth and other pharmaceutical companies.

Karen Mittleman, as Antidote has noted, has the perfect Dickensian name for her job as the go-between finding researchers willing to sign their names to papers written by drug companies.

The reprimand by McGill seems little more than a very mild slap on the wrist.

Related: McGill sets bad example on integrity

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Ethics, Medicine, Science, scientific misconduct | Comments Off on McGill University reprimands Professor for medical ghostwriting

Marc Hauser’s lobbyists get to work but only end up excusing scientific misconduct

August 9, 2011

Marc Hauser’s friends have started on the process of repairing some of the damage to his reputation brought about by his own misconduct. He has “resigned” from Harvard but – with a little help from his friends – he will no doubt pop-up with a fancy title at some other institution soon.

 The Harvard Crimson reports that a group of academics have written a “letter” criticising the investigation of Hauser’s misconducts by Harvard. The letter was written by Pierre Pica, a scientist at the National Center for Scientific Research, Bert Vaux, director of studies in linguistics at King’s College in the University of Cambridge, and Jeffrey Watumull, a Ph.D. student at the University of Cambridge. Watumull previously worked in Hauser’s lab. Eight other academics including Naom Chomsky have added their signatures.

But they protest too much about one of their own. I felt on reading their letter that while they accuse Harvard of a witch-hunt and express concern about the undermining of scientific inquiry they actually end up trivialising ethical behaviour and excusing scientific misconduct. Their concern does not ring true. The letter talks about a media frenzy against Hauser but ignores the fact that nothing came up in the media until after the 3 year investigation had shown the misconduct and Hauser had taken a year’s gardening leave.

Harvard Crimson: Monday, August 08, 2011

The letter—which was signed by MIT Linguistics Professor Noam Chomsky, one of Hauser’s mentors—criticizes the scope of the inquiry into Hauser’s research, the media frenzy that followed the release of Harvard’s findings, and insinuations that Hauser’s body of work has been thrown into question by the investigation. ….

Eight academics from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Brazil signed the letter, including Harvard Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology Florian Engert. It has been circulated among top academics.

The Crimson obtained a copy of the letter—titled “Could the Process of Investigating Scientific Misconduct Undermine Scientific Inquiry?”—from the authors.

Following allegations that Hauser falsified research data, a three-year investigation into Hauser’s research found him “solely responsible for eight counts of scientific misconduct,” Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith wrote in a letter last August. Reports attributed the source of those allegations to his graduate students.

In the fallout from the investigation, Hauser took a year-long leave of absence, was then barred from teaching for another year, and ultimately resigned from his tenured position this summer.

Related: Hausergate posts

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Ethics, Science, scientific misconduct, Social Science | 1 Comment »

Kalasalingam University takes action against misconduct: head of department and 6 PhD students sacked

August 7, 2011

The Sangiliyandi Gurunathan and Kalasalingam University story was covered by earlier posts here and here.

I have today received replies from the University and from the Society of Scientific Values reporting on the actions already taken. The head of Department – Sangiliyandi Gurunathan – had been instructed to and has resigned. Four students registered for a PhD have had their registrations cancelled. Pending PhD registrations for two further students have also been cancelled.

This is a remarkable, speedy and very commendable response from the Vice Chancellor Dr. S Radhakrishnan. In the Indian context (and perhaps in the context of any University) the speed and decisiveness is unprecedented and it gives me hope for the future of ethical and academic standards at Indian Universities.

Press Release (pdf)  Kalasalingam release 

The replies from Dr. Radhakrishnan, Vice Chancellor and from Prof. Chopra of the Society of Scientific Values to the mail I had sent to Chopra (copied to Radhakrishnan) follow:

date Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 8:13 AM
subject Re: Action taken by Kalasalingam University

Dear Sir, 
Please refer the attached pdf file  regarding the action taken against Dr. G. Sangliyandi and the research scholars who are found to be involved in scientific misconduct (Image manipulation and the potential of scientific fraud) 
Thanking you for bringing this issue to our notice immediately. 

With Regards 
Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
Vice-Chancellor
Kalasalingam University
Krishnankoil – 626 126
Tamilnadu INDIA 

From SSV copied to me

Dear Prof Radhakrishnan:

On behalf of the Society for Scientific Values (SSV), I wish to thank you and congratulate you  on taking a right and an exemplary decision on unethical  practices by your colleague and students. We will post this news on our website as also in our next News&Views.  Very rarely do VCs take such strong and correct action as you have done.
SSV will be very happy to join hands with your faculty colleagues to organise  one day  seminar on Ethical Values for S&T at your University at a mutually convenient date. Please do let me know.
Best wishes
Prof (Dr) K. L. Chopra (Padamshri)
FNA, FASc, FNASc, FNAE, D.Sc.(hc)
(Former Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur)
President, Society for Scientific Values

date Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 9:32 PM
subject Wholesale retractions of papers at Kalasalingam University

Dear Professor Chopra,

You will be aware of the wholesale findings of image manipulation in at least 8 papers from the Biotechnology Department of Kalasalingam University. Sangiliyandi Gurunathan is the primary investigator on these papers and the list of retracted papers which bear his name is now getting very long.

There seem to be two issues here: 
  1. the widespread manipulation of images and plagiarism by doctoral  students, and
  2. the lack of leadership and supervision which seems to encourage such   scientific misconduct. 
I draw your attention to:
Retraction Watch – Angiogenesis retracts two papers, cites image manipulation in eight, as PI blames unethical students
ktwop blog – At least 8 more papers from biotechnology department at Kalasalingam University manipulated as 2 are retracted.
I would hope that the Society for Scientific Values could conduct an investigation because something is seriously amiss at this university.
I have also copied this to Dr. S Radhakrisnan, Vice Chancellor since I have corresponded with him earlier (February 2011) about the earlier retraction of Sangiliyandi Gurunathan’s paper. 
best regards
(ktwop)

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Ethics, India, Science, scientific misconduct | 6 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »