Difference between revisions of "Class Journal Week 7"

Revision as of 04:48, 10 October 2013

Miles Malefyt

Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?

I was not aware that this level of medical fraud had occurred so recently.

What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case? My initial reaction when I watched this video was anger. The fact that he lead on people who were vulnerable and in need of hope just to make a ton of fame and money seems to be almost inhuman

What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud? The role of data sharing really helped to solve this case because it wouldnt be a true scientific experiment if the data could not be replecated. When two other researchers found out there there were a number of discrepensies in the data the question was raised and people began to do research of their own.

What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.) I would be interested in finding out how the same doctor who was committing this fraud was still so involved in the external review committee and why the review board who suspended his trials in the first place got green lighted after the data he had been publishing had changed

Alina Vreeland

Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video? I was not aware of this case before watching the video, surprising

What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?

What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud? By allowing the data to be publicly viewed, it allowed peers to question and analyze it on their own. If the data had not been available for all to view, peer revision would not have been possible to find the errors, and Dr. Potti would not have been further investigated and would have probably deceived many more people.

What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)

Lauren Magee

1. Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?
   • I was not at all aware of this case of research fraud, but clearly many people were severely affected by the results.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?
   • I want to believe that there is a possibility that Potti didn't know his methods were inaccurate. Potti could have believed in his research so much that he felt he needed to modify it, so it had the chance to prove itself in the patients. If his methods did work, he would be saving millions of lives, so maybe he felt using 112 patients to prove it works, was working for the greater good. Of course, this doesn't justify his desicion by any means, because he was putting 112 lives at risk, even if the treatment was successful. If Potti was purely motivated by money, then I think he is a disgusting and desipicable human being, but personally I think he purer reasoning for continuing his research.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?
   • Originally, Potti was only sharing the data sets that had been modified to fit his predictions so collegues didn't notice anything strange about his conclusions. There was, however, two men from a seperate group involved in cancer research, who found numerous flaws in Potti's data. When they brought these issues up with Potti, he explained that they had been accounted for in more updated studies and were no longer relivant. The two men, however, continued to find problems with the conclusions Potti was making and eventually brought it up to Duke, who asked someone to investigate the findings. The investigation supported Potti and Duke continued their cancer trails. It wasn;t until much later, when a reporter found that Potti had lied about his credentials, that his advisor finally took a look at Potti's original data. It become abundantly clear that the data did not support Potti's conclusions and that someone must have manually changed the dataset to produce significant results.
4. What additional information would you like to know about this case?
   • I want to know how Dr. Potti thinks the data became modified to fit his desired results? He claims that when he started the cancer trials he didn't know that the data had been modified, but if he wasn't the one who changed the data, how did it become so warped? I would also like to ask why his laboratory advisor allowed him to be the only one to view the exact output of his study? The reason cross checking Potti's data didn't bring up errors was because Potti was the only one who had his hands on the original data sets. Why was this allowed? I think his advisor should have been much more suspicious of Potti's behavior, because this was such a revolutionary finding. I would also like to ask Duke why they allowed the cancer trials to continue when there had been numerous signs, brought to their attention, about the possible flaws in the research!

Laurmagee (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2013 (PDT)

Kevin Meilak

1. Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?

• I was unaware of this case of research fraud before viewing the video.

2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?

• My initial reaction is one of revulsion. It is clear from the language used by his colleague in charge of the lab that the data Potti presented was intentionally altered in order to push forward with a treatment method that did not in fact work. Doing this was a deliberate attempt to become rich and famous for a cure that did not exist that intentionally deceived patients desperate for any hope.

3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?

• Data sharing is how the fraud was uncovered. The analysts who initially contacted Duke with the claim that the data was inaccurate had access to the data, as well as the review committee who temporarily vindicated Dr. Potti. It was due to further sharing with institutions like the National Cancer Institute that further uncovered the fraud. Without data sharing, it is possible that it would have taken much longer to uncover the problems in the data.

4. What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)

• I would like to know exactly how this failed treatment was attempted, why so many were convinced that it did in fact work, and anything Duke or other institutions did after this case to prevent further research fraud.

Kmeilak (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2013 (PDT)

Tauras

1. I don't recall precisely, but I believe I had briefly heard about this case of fraud (or another similar scenario) before. However, I only recalled a very vague idea of it and no details.
2. My initial reaction to this story is kind of mixed. I can understand why someone would publish altered data, but I don't understand why they would do so in a way that puts other people at risk. I think he wouldn't appear to be nearly as bad if his fraud occurred in conservation biology or in non-humans. I also this he came across all the worse for having spun the issue and for still engaging in the research community.
3. Data sharing by itself was unable to discover this fraud. Although some individuals thought the published data was suspicious, the openly shared data supported Potti's conclusions and passed review by the general scientific community. However, consistent pressure due to the irregularities did draw attention to the issue, eventually exposing Potti's resume enhancement that led to his original data being examined in earnest.
4. I would like to know what fail-safes there are in place to prevent this in less vital circumstances. For example, how often are less important findings reviewed? I think it would be relatively easy, if standards are lax, to skim a living with forged data provided you were not too ambitious or revolutionary with your conclusions. I would also like to know how the rest of the scientific community reacts and why he still has a job in research.

I disagree with several other student comments. In response to Lauren, I don't blame the lab supervisor. Having worked with massive data sets myself as part of my REU and DNA sequence data sets, I understand how a supervisor is inherently less familiar with the data than the one working with it and has to trust their analysis. Additionally, if there was a policy for the supervisor to go through the raw data, I'm sure Potti is smart enough that he could have evaded the normal, casual examination. I also disagree with the general claim that data sharing discovered the fraud. It brought attention to the issue, but was inconclusive and it was only direct work with the original, unpublished data that led to the discovery of the fraud itself.

Taur.vil (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2013 (PDT)

Kevin McGee

1. I was not aware of this research fraud happening before I viewed this video.
2. My initial reaction to this video reminds me of the importance of honesty in data. This also makes me think about how a scientist should not be influenced by a desire to be rich or famous, like Poti did. He put other's lives at risk for his own means.
3. Data sharing was very important. A analysists who first found the fraud were given the data, along with a review committee and the National Cancer Institute. The fraud would never have been uncovered without data sharing.
4. I would like to know how the rest of the investigation plays out. I would also like to know what the procedure that failed consisted of.

Stephen Louie

1. I was unaware of this incident before I viewed the video.
2. I was taken aback at the blatant disregard of integrity and scholarship in this case. I can understand the desire to publish potentially groundbreaking research and the benefits that it entails. I can also understand that mistakes can easily occur in research be included in the report. What is truly shocking is how Dr. Potti committed obvious falsification of data when he was fully aware that this was something that could affect hundreds of thousands of lives.
3. Data sharing is what brought this case of fraud into the public eye. Since the data was readily available, private analysts could catch the numerous details that looked like they were modified to support the theory. Institutions such as the National Cancer Institute were also able to conduct thorough investigations that exposed Dr. Potti.
4. I would like to have further information as to the type of treatment that Dr. Potti was proposing. It would also be more interesting to see as to what exact details he modified in order to support his theory.

Slouie (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2013 (PDT)

Gabriel Leis

• I was not aware of this case of research fraud until now and I find it quite shocking.
• This case is almost unbelievable especially when considered the circumstances. The information was produced by an alleged Rhodes scholar working under a well-respected researcher at a very prestigious university. If data can be manipulated in this situation then data could be manipulated anywhere.
• Data sharing played a vital role in uncovering this fraud. If the data could not have been analyzed by multiple sources then the fraud would have never been exposed.
• I would like to know more about how the data manipulation occurred as well as how the data manipulation was uncovered.

Gleis (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2013 (PDT)

Hilda Delgadillo

1. Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?

• I was not aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video.

1. What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?

• I was initially very appalled by these events and couldn't believe this actually occurred at such a prestigious university where you would think there would be more of heavy control and inspection of the research being held since they can run the risk of being sued and tainting their institution's name if something were to go wrong as seen through this video.

1. What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?

• Data sharing played a huge role in uncovering this fraud since it was through the shared data the research team exposed, that the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston was able to analyze the researched data where the initial suspicions began due to discrepancies.

1. What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)

• How was the researcher responsible for this fraud, Dr. Podi, able to find a job as a cancer doctor in South Carolina? Is it possible to remove him from any type of research position at least in the United States, but if possible around the world? How are the legal proceedings going?

HDelgadi (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2013 (PDT)