Difference between revisions of "Class Journal Week 7"

Revision as of 01:05, 20 October 2015

Nicole Anguiano

1. Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
   • I was aware of the Duke case before viewing the video, as it was studied in the Bioinformatics class I took last year. I was also aware of the Volkswagen case, and have been closely following the news behind it.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • My initial reaction to hearing about the Duke case was horror. The fact that the research was allowed to continue despite the number of issues that had been raised was both shocking and saddening to me. While it was deeply saddening that the ineffective treatment had potentially contributed to the deaths of some of the patients, it is also devastating that the patients were led to believe that this treatment was going to save them. The false hope given to those who were terminally ill, in many ways, is one of the most appalling parts of the entire situation.
   • TO DO
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • TO DO
4. What additional information would you like to know about the Duke case in particular? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
   • TO DO
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • TO DO

Nanguiano (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2015 (PDT)

Lena Olufson

1. Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
   • I was not aware of the Duke case research fraud before viewing this video, but I am glad that I have been exposed to it because it is a very relevant and relatable issue in our current society that needs to be exposed to the public more. I had read about the Volkswagen case in the news about a week ago, but I did not know as many details about it as the article explained.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these frauds?
   • I am very shocked that the Volkswagen case went undetected for so long. It is crazy to me that they were able to design a software for the cars in the first place that allowed a car to tell when it was being tested! This honestly kind of made my stomach turn a little because it shows how technology is starting to develop a mind of its own in a way since machines and other electronic devices are becoming ‘smarter’ and able to trick us as humans. It is also sad to me that companies would do these kinds of things just for money. Volkswagen’s actual emissions are absurd and are ruining the environment tremendously, and the leaders of the company were well aware of their actions. In a time where our planet is slowly starting falling apart and become unsustainable, it is scary and upsetting to learn about how the top companies in the world are trying to cheat their way out of helping Earth. In response to the Duke video, it is horrible that Potti would create such a false thing and then use it on humans. It is very unethical and it is so sad to hear about the stories of the patients who underwent the clinical trial and then found out that everything was a fraud. I am happy to know that there are people out there that are on the look out for cheating and fraud manipulation of data.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • Data sharing allowed the German and the United States labs to discover and expose the Volkswagen fraud. By analyzing the test data from the cars and looking over many years of data taken from the company, the analysts were able to spot the cheating and incorrect information given. This would not have been possible without data sharing since data sharing allows for people to gain access to data that would otherwise remain solitaire. Data sharing also aided the Duke case because it allowed the outside sources to access the specific files and data for the clinical trial and then they were able to analyze it very precisely. By sharing the data, the fakeness of the trial was exposed and brought to the attention of the public.
4. What additional information would you like to know about the Duke case in particular?
   • I would like to know more about how the people who detected the fraudulent data were able to figure out that it was fake. It would be interesting and cool to see the data files first hand and learn the ways they were able to prove that the cancer drug treatments were incorrect.
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • The two cases are similar in the sense that they both dealt with data manipulation in order to achieve money. The Volkswagen company lied about the car emissions by a means of creating software that can detect when it is being tested. The Duke scam was a group of researchers and doctors who lied about the validity and accuracy of their software. Both cases were able to be called out and discovered by outside sources due to the sharing of data, however in both cases I would say it was a little too late before the fraud was discovered. Peoples’ lives were and are at stake in both cases and for this reason I think that the cases are very serious issues that need to be addressed and used as examples in our society in order to prevent further corruption in the technology world.

Lenaolufson (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2015 (PDT)

Emily Simso

1. Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
   • I was not aware of the Duke case, but I was aware of the Volkswagen case.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • Hearing about both of these cases made me very frustrated. In my mind, people who work towards cancer treatment or environmental standards should be motivated to create the best products possible. Learning that, ultimately, people only care about making money is disappointing. In the Duke case, I am especially mad because he was dealing directly with people's lives, blatantly disregarding their basic right to healthcare. Cancer is a very important line of research, and his work discredits the work of other researchers. In the Volkswagen case, I was very upset when I heard about the increased emissions. Environmental issues are extremely important and affect everyone; Volkswagen's cheating doesn't make sense to me because purposefully polluting the environment is so backwards in my mind. After learning about both of these cases, I also thought about how they intersect in terms of public health.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • Data sharing made it possible to unveil the shady behavior happening in both cases. In the Duke case, Dr. Anil Potti's peers were able to realize that the data from the clinical trails went against all of his claims. In the Volkswagen case, researchers discovered that the manufacturers were releasing fabricated emissions numbers. Therefore, data sharing allowed outside parties to analyze the public information to determine if the results were valid. Without the open flow of data common in the scientific community, these discoveries would not have been made, and the offending parties would have continued behaving in the same way, harming other parties.
4. What additional information would you like to know about the Duke case in particular? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
   • I would like to know what happened to other patients affected by this research - were they placed into other clinical programs or did they have to return to their previous courses of treatment? I would also like to know if anyone is looking into this line of research now or if the approach is completely irrelevant.
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • These two cases are similar because they both involve the fabrication of data to promote the interests of a specific party; they were able to manipulate the system to increase their own bottom line. Additionally, an outside party was responsible for figuring out the falsehoods involved in both cases, exposing the offending group to the public. The repercussions in both instances were also quite serious.
   • The cases are different in a couple of ways. In the Duke case, it was primarily the actions of one individual that led to the fraud, while the Volkswagen scandal most likely involved the decisions of multiple people. Additionally, in the Duke case, Dr. Potti deliberately switched the data, while Volkswagen was able to manipulate the software itself to stop measuring emissions after a certain point. While both cases involve public health care, the Duke case deals more with treatment, while the Volkswagen case concerns environmental factors.

Emilysimso (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2015 (PDT)

Kristin Zebrowski

• Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
  • No, I was not aware of the Duke case of research fraud, but I'm appalled that it occurred. I heard about the Volkswagen case but I haven't been able to follow it closely in the last few weeks.
• What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
  • I was completely shocked, especially regarding the Duke case. With the Duke case, I’m disgusted at how Potti’s actions were affecting so many people when they put their faith in him—researchers, the university, doctors around the country, and especially the dying people who chose him as their last hope. It’s extremely disappointing that a medical researcher would do such a thing—the purpose of medicine, after all, is to help humanity. I find it ridiculous that a person would even do such a thing (he told the patients it had an 80% success rate and he may have even been giving them the most harmful drug for their health!!) because someone was bound to find out sooner or later that what Potti claimed was just not true, and multiple people were raising red flags at his data even from the beginning (and I’m so glad that there are good people who noticed something fishy with his data and pursued it). The Volkswagen case was also very frustrating to read about. I do not understand why a company would lie about something that pollutes the Earth so terribly, especially when environmental issues are at the forefront of the world’s vision. In my view, lying like Volkswagen did, while it may make some money short term or at least keep the company from losing it, is ultimately detrimental to everyone in that it affects the whole planet. It’s also scary to me that the only industry with safeguards against these cheating machines is the casinos. I hope that more stringent regulations and safeguards are put into place soon.
• What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
  • In the case of the Duke research fraud, it took many different researchers to "knock" Potti down. When the data was submitted into many public medical journals, researchers were going crazy for it, but several of the researchers analyzed it to verify it and found the same errors over and over again. Eventually, his colleagues were the ones who discovered that his lying began with his claim of being a Rhodes Scholar and ended in his manipulation of data that didn't agree with his hypothesis. In the case of Volkswagen, two small labs in two different countries unearthed the company's fraud. In both cases, data sharing was a large part of the frauds being discovered, but diligence amongst researchers was even more important.
• What additional information would you like to know about the Duke case in particular? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
  • I would like to know more about how they found out the data was fake. It took so many people to finally knock Potti down—what about the methods they used was finally able to do it? Also, at the end it was mentioned that Rob Califf is implementing new procedures for Duke. What would these include so that the university (or any university) and its researchers would not miss anything so big again? How did it happen?
• How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
  • The two cases are similar because they both deal with people attempting to manipulate something (data, or emissions tests) in order to make money in ways that affect the lives of people. In the Duke case, this effect was much more direct, as the lack of a real, verified treatment may have led to the deaths of the test patients. In the Volkswagen case the effect of the lies is on more citizens but in a less direct way in that it contributes to pollution and global health via environmental purity. The Duke case was spearheaded primarily by one person, Potti, who duped his colleagues and close friends as well as the medical community and hopeful cancer patients, while the Volkswagen case involved a team of engineers and people in the company. In both cases, data sharing was a large part of why the frauds were discovered, and both required diligent people to sift through what was truth and what was not. Thank goodness for those people.

Kzebrows (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2015 (PDT)

Kevin Wyllie

1. Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
   • I was aware of the Duke case because it was discussed during SURP (or at least I believe it was this same case), however I didn't remember the specific details. I was not at all aware of the Volkswagen case.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • They're both very concerning, because the advancement and betterment of humanity through science and technology is highly dependent on the assumption that business/research will be carried out ethically and honestly. I think both cases are indicative of an unfortunate shift in values toward emphasizing individual success over any kind of collective well-being. Science/technology began as ways to improve the standard of living for everyone, but now they are seen as a game to be won, in exchange for wealth and accolades. This is an attitude that I'm exposed to (in others and admittedly sometimes in myself) as a pre-health student. Because attaining a career in the healthcare field requires a particularly high degree of both academic and extra-curricular achievement, pre-health students often get caught up in the "build-my-resume-at-all-costs" attitude and consequently chase certain endeavors with a dishonest mindset. I'm not talking about literal academic dishonesty - as would be the most directly analogous to either the Duke or Volkswagen case - but rather things like being more concerned with the letter on one's transcript than how much they actually learn in a course, or doing community service for the sole purpose of adding to one's total hour count on their CV. Again, these aren't directly analogous to either of the cases of we're discussing, but they're indicative of the same underlying value, which seeks personal achievement at the expense of some broader picture.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • In the Duke case, data sharing was what revealed Dr. Potti's intentional manipulation of the data. This is one reason it is good to set a precedent for data sharing in the scientific community. It effectively keeps scientists honest, because if they attempt to not share their data, there is already reason for suspicion. In the Volkswagen case, the "data sharing" itself was what the company tampered with. They created a "defeat device" so that data (in the form of emission measurements) immediately as it was created.
4. What additional information would you like to know about the Duke case in particular? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
   • Because I do know that the data in question was microarray data (though the video doesn't explicitly mention this), I am curious as to whether Potti directly/manually altered his raw data or simply changed his normalization/statistical adjustments. On top of that, what specifically did the "forensic bioinformaticians" see that so obviously indicated tampering of the data?
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • They're similar because they both involve manipulation of data out of greed or selfishness, and consequently, they both would horribly detriment humanity if they became common practice. However, they're different in that one involves manual manipulation of data while the other involves a software-mediated performance change in a physical machine. Potti tampered with data after it had been recorded, while Volkswagen altered the "experiment," so to speak, and a change in the data occurred as a consequence.

Kwyllie (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2015 (PDT)

Trixie Roque

1. Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
   • I was aware of the Duke case, but I only knew about it from seeing this exact same video over the summer; I’m not sure that re-watching the video again and knowing about the topic would count as already knowing about it since the question specifically asks if I was aware before viewing this video. I wasn’t aware of the Volkswagen case, however.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • I was initially surprised that these kinds of things would get past other experts in the field. I was even more concerned that the people behind the frauds (Potti in the Duke case, in particular) would allow innocent people who only want help to have false hope. He allowed them to believe that they would get help, but they were actually receiving the opposite. Those who knew about the frauds would even let ordinary people believe that the discoveries were legitimate even though they are clearly cheating out the people who are unfortunate enough to use their products. Even with the Volkswagen case, it was horrifying to learn that a company would rather destroy the environment by letting their cars emit harmful substances than lose a profit.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • By allowing the data to be released to the other scientists, in the Duke case, they confirmed/disproved the results that Potti arrived at. Similarly, the American and German researchers who diligently worked to expose the frauds by Volkswagen used data collected from testing the emissions in order to verify that it was, in fact, the cars that were designed such that they only pass the lab tests, but not when they are actually being used by their owners.
4. What additional information would you like to know about the Duke case in particular? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
   • I would like to know what happened to the rest of the test subjects and to Potti, as well. He was treated as a great scientist, but after the incident, I would like to know where he ended up. Even thought I highly doubt the condition of the experimental patients will be revealed in detail, I would still want to know if they ever received some kind of help. Also, I would like to know more about the “cheating devices” used by Volkswagen since I wondered why the engineers would design them to only pass the tests. I would think they can extend it to make the car as emission-free as they claim it to be.
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • These two cases are similar by how they manipulated data to work in their favor. In Potti’s case, he manipulated the data in order to make it look like he has found a way to cure cancer, or at least give a patient higher chances; in the Volkswagen case, they manipulated the circumstances such that the cars pass laboratory emissions test, but would fail in real life scenarios. They are different since the Volkswagen case used a cheating software, which would allow the cars to actually pass when they are needed to pass, whereas Potti used more direct manipulation of data in order to make his work more valid than it actually was since his results actually disproved his hypothesis. Potti only benefitted because no one cared to check the validity of his data before they were published, while the Volkswagen engineers made it seem that their cars are working as expected, and they were, but only during testing.

--- Troque (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2015 (PDT)

Anu Varshneya

• Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
• What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
• What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
• What additional information would you like to know about the Duke case in particular? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
• How are these two cases similar and different from each other?

--

Jake Woodlee

• Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
  • I hadn't heard of the Duke case before and I had only heard a little bit about the Volkswagen case. I had never really read articles about either of them so that was interesting.
• What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
• What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
• What additional information would you like to know about the Duke case in particular? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
• How are these two cases similar and different from each other?

Jwoodlee (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2015 (PDT)