Scientists Participating In Ongoing Criminal Conspiracy.

[Guest guest]

GMW: Researchers lured to fudge truth

" GM WATCH " <info

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:27:32 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

Accordiung to this study, nearly 1 in 6 US scientists say that in the

last 3 years they changed the design, methodology or results of a study

in response to pressure from a funding source, while more than 1 in 3

admitted some form of research wrongdoing.

 

An earlier UK study found that 1 in 3 scientists working for Government

quangos or newly privatised laboratories said they had been asked to

adjust their conclusions to suit the sponsor. (see item 2)

---

Pressure for success often lures researchers to fudge truth

By Steve Levin

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, , March 19, 2006

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06078/672956.stm

 

In November, University of Pittsburgh reproductive biologist Gerald P.

Schatten found himself entangled in an investigation of scientific

misconduct along with a stem-cell research collaborator in South Korea.

 

Renowned Korean researcher Hwang Woo-suk admitted manipulating

laboratory samples to create fake DNA results for a paper --

co-authored by Dr.

Schatten -- that claimed to have succeeded in embryonic stem-cell

cloning.

[article continues below this box]

***

TABLE

 

Top 10 [mis]behaviors

 

Percentage of 3,247 U.S. scientists who say that they engaged in the

behavior listed between 2002 and 2005.

 

Changing the design, methodology or results of a study in response to

pressure from a funding source - 15.5%

 

Overlooking others' use of flawed data or questionable interpretation

of data - 12.5%

 

Circumventing certain minor aspects of human-subject requirements -

7.6%

 

Failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research -

6.0%

 

Unauthorized use of confidential information in connection with one's

own research - 1.7%

 

Using anothers ideas without obtaining permission or giving due credit

- 1.4%

 

Relationships with students, research subjects or clients that may be

interpreted as questionable - 1.4%

 

Not properly disclosing involvement in firms whose products are based

on one's own research - 0.3%

 

Ignoring major aspects of human-subject requirements - 0.3%

 

Falsifying or cooking research data - 0.3%

***

[article continues]

The fraud staggered the worldwide scientific community because it

occurred in the high-profile discipline of stem-cell research and

involved

Dr. Hwang, who carried the title of Supreme Scientist in Korea and was

head of the world's leading stem cell research center.

 

But while the breadth of that case was unusual, the occurrence of

scientific research misconduct is not.

 

A recent survey by HealthPartners Research Foundation in Minneapolis,

Minn., of more than 3,400 early- and mid-level U.S. scientists funded by

the National Institutes of Health showed that more than one-third of

them admitted research wrongdoings between 2002 and 2005.

 

Only 1.5 percent of them admitted to the most serious misconduct of

falsification or plagiarism.

 

And last year, the federal Office of Research Integrity in the

Department of Health and Human Services received about 300 allegations of

research misconduct last year, double the number from 2003.

 

Cheating, of course, occurs in all fields. But scientists and

researchers?

 

" The temptations are huge, " said Paul D. Tate, senior scholar in

residence at the Council of Graduate Schools and director of its

Responsible

Conduct of Research initiative.

 

At a research lab where no one is looking over shoulders, a scientist

who ignores anomalous results can produce career-boosting work.

 

" At the cutting edge of science, " Dr. Tate said, " the rewards are huge

and the temptation is greater. "

 

Such was the case with Dr. Hwang. As first recipient of the title

Supreme Scientist, he received $15 million from his government. That

was in

addition to about $27 million in international funding support he

secured in 2005. His online fan club had 15,000 members.

 

Ethicists point to various reasons for cheating in the scientific

community, among them mental illness, the unfamiliarity of foreign

nationals

with American research ethics, pressure to publish and the lackluster

teaching of ethics in graduate schools.

 

Sometimes, researchers can be swept up in the misconduct of others or

simply make missteps.

 

Dr. Schatten's case shows that the pressure to move forward on

high-profile projects, combined with the difficulty of keeping track of

research involving multiple teams in disparate locations, can make it

difficult to steer clear of ethical lapses.

 

Dr. Schatten, who is director of the Pittsburgh Development Center and

Magee-Womens Research Institute, was involved in laboratory-related

misconduct investigations at both his previous university jobs prior to

arriving at Pitt in mid-2001.

 

The first involved misappropriated eggs at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison during 1993-94. Dr. Schatten, then a professor of

zoology,

molecular biology, and obstetrics and gynecology, used eggs for research

that later were discovered to have been obtained illegally by a

University of California-Irvine fertility clinic, from women without

their

consent.

 

In that case, two UC-Irvine physicians were charged by the federal

government with mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud patients of their

genetic material. Both fled the United States. A third UC-Irvine

physician

was convicted in 1998 of fraudulently billing insurance companies; he

was fined $64,000 and sentenced to three years probation.

 

Additionally, more than 100 couples were paid nearly $20 million to

settle their cases.

 

As far as Dr. Schatten's involvement, a University of Wisconsin

investigation determined that he " unintentionally " received the

misappropriated eggs.

 

" Jerry was very thoroughly investigated, " said Alta Charo, a professor

of law and medical ethics at Wisconsin and a member of the university

team that investigated Dr. Schatten at the time.

 

" He did receive written documents that purported to be consent forms

.... and relied upon those and had provided those to the appropriate

oversight bodies. "

 

Dr. Schatten left Wisconsin in 1998 for the Oregon National Primate

Research Center, where he was research director of the Center for Women's

Health, and a professor of obstetrics and gynecology, and cell and

developmental biology.

 

There, he directed the researchers who in early 2001 produced the

world's first genetically modified nonhuman primate, a transgenic monkey.

 

Later that year, the center's Institutional Biosafety Committee

investigated Dr. Schatten for three " miscommunications " that included a

misstatement to the committee about his research work. All three

issues were

remedied " in a relatively short period of time, " a research center

spokesman said

 

" They were fairly minor issues, " said the spokesman, Jim Newman.

" However, if they were not addressed so quickly, they would have been

more

serious issues. "

 

Dr. Schatten has refused public comment since it was first reported in

November that Dr. Hwang had fabricated data on the cloning of

patient-specific stem cells. A Pitt inquiry last month concluded Dr.

Schatten

did not intentionally falsify stem-cell research information described in

a paper that appeared last year in the journal Science. The article has

since been retracted.

 

The committee did chide Dr. Schatten for his lack of judgment in

allowing his listing as senior author of the discredited paper and

recommended the university " implement whatever corrective or

disciplinary actions

are commensurate with [Dr. Schatten's] research misbehavior. "

 

Such actions would be at the discretion of Arthur Levine, senior vice

chancellor of health sciences, and would be kept confidential.

 

South Korean state prosecutors plan to announce the result of their

investigation in Dr. Hwang's research fabrication this week.

 

Since 1992, the federal Office of Research Integrity has averaged about

11 findings of research misconduct annually. But with only 10 staff

members to investigate allegations, the office closes only a small

fraction of cases each year.

 

Glenn McGee, director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany

Medical College, said a good way to reduce cheating would be to improve

ethics teaching.

 

" The teaching of research ethics is today where the teaching of medical

ethics was in the 1950s, " said Dr. McGee, co-author of an article last

month in Science on " Research Conduct: Lessons of the Stem Cell

Scandal. "

 

" We are worse at training scientists in research ethics than we are at

any other forms of ethics training in any other field, " he said. " It

takes more ethics screening to adopt a cat than for new scientists. "

 

At Pitt, an average of 5,000 grants are submitted each year to federal

agencies, other governmental agencies and foundations. One-half to

three-quarters of all the grants are submitted to the National Institutes

of Health, the federal font of more than $200 billion in research grants

each year.

 

The university requires all of its federally funded researchers to

complete Web-based training in Research Practice Fundamentals.

 

According to Jerry Rosenberg, Pitt's research integrity officer, there

were 10 cases of misconduct between 1996 and 2005. Five of the cases

were reported to the federal Office of Research Integrity, which

confirmed findings of research misconduct.

 

Ethicists disagree about the best way to prevent scientific cheating.

Robert P. George, the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director

of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at

Princeton University, believes it's a character issue.

 

" You won't prevent this kind of thing by simply making people more

knowledgeable about the rules, " he said.

 

But Dr. Tate from the Council of Graduate Schools thinks the problem

can be " attacked " by awareness and education. An organization of more

than 450 universities' graduate programs that award 90 percent of all

U.S.

doctoral degrees, CGS received a $300,000 grant from the National

Science Foundation this month to develop research ethics training

programs.

 

" If we're not going to change the culture of research, at least make

ethical questions a lot more visible on the radar screen than they have

been, " said Dr. Tate.

 

" The goal is to keep research ethics on the agenda of graduate school

students, deans and educators for a long period of time so that ethical

issues in research do become a regular part of the landscape in

graduate education. "

---

MORE OF THE SAME

 

Scientists regularly 'asked to fix results for backer'

http://ngin.tripod.com/pblinks2.htm

 

A report in Daily Telegraph, Monday 14 February 2000 on the impact of

sponsorship on impartiality

" ONE in three scientists working for Government quangos or newly

privatised laboratories says he has been asked to adjust his

conclusions to

suit

his sponsor. "

 

Research into the funding of 10 papers on the alleged blood clotting

risk of the third generation contraceptive pills found those funded by

the

pharmaceutical industry had discovered no risk, whereas those with

other sources of funding claimed there was, he said.

 

Recent American research had also discovered links between studies

which found passive smokin was not dangerous and the tobacco industry.

 

" These competing interests are very important, " said Dr Smith [editor

of the British Medical Journal]. " It has quite a profound influence on

the

conclusions and we deceive ourselves if we think science is wholly

impartial. "

---

LANCET: Corrupt Science-Business interface

http://ngin.tripod.com/pblinks2.htm

 

This is about a $2 million concerted campaign to halt or undermine a

scientific study on the dangers of passive smoking, targeting

researchers, the

media and government.

 

" All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data

being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues

being

seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against

an aggressively deceptive corporate sector. "

THE LANCET, April 2000 - commentary and Guardian article:

http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000409.html

http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,2763,156849,00.html

 

 

----------------------