Difference between revisions of "Class Journal Week 6"

Revision as of 19:39, 9 October 2017

No, I had no idea about this case before watching the video.
My initial reaction was really of shock. I am amazed that someone would willingly manipulate data, especially when it comes to people's lives. I also was shocked that Duke did not react sooner and that they were so naive to believe Potti.
The data was reviewed by some employees at Duke, however despite suspicion, they still took Potti's word and believed him. After finding the same mistakes over and over again, they finally submitted it to an outside source to be reviewed. Also the national cancer institute had problems with his data.
I would like to know on what legal grounds Potti is free from having his license stripped from him. Also, as of 2012 it says that Potti is working for a North Dakota cancer center. I would like to know how anyone decided to hire him purely out of liability reasons.

Zvanysse (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2017 (PDT)

I did not know about this case of research fraud before this video.
I was very surprised after hearing about this case of research fraud. First of all, it is incredible that an individual (in this case Dr. Potti) was willing to put people's health at risk and lie to people in order to try to gain fame and fortune. But perhaps even more surprising is that it took so long for somebody to finally check the validity of the original data that led to all of the findings. It's incredible that the very foundation of the whole discovery was not scrutinized and checked by more people.
It was the initial scrutiny of two individuals at a separate cancer center that raised initial concerns about the findings. And it was ultimately the find from an editor of a small cancer newsletter that found the tip by looking at Dr. Potti's background. All of these findings speak to how data sharing is crucial to validate findings; as the more people that can validate and check the authenticity of data and findings from data, the more reliable to findings are.
I would be interested in knowing what kinds of effects (if any) this case of fraud had on the necessary protocols for validating data in research studies (especially related to medical findings).

Qlanners (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2017 (PDT)

No, I was unaware of this case of research fraud before watching this video.
It’s crazy to think how long he got away with his manipulation. It’s hard to understand why someone would take advantage of people at a desperate and vulnerable position, like cancer, just to make money and get recognized. Moreover, he should have known he would get caught at some point, especially since he made his treatment seem so successful. He would’ve had to have known people would be suspicious if he advertises an 80% success rate when it constantly fails.
Data sharing allowed people to access the original data, which revealed the fraud. People could clearly see how the advertised data was manipulated to benefit his research.
I would be interested in learning more about the process of uncovering the data. Was the true data really just there and easy to access for people, but they just didn’t think to double check his work?

Cwong34 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2017 (PDT)

Assignments

Journal Entries:

Shared Journals:

Group Project

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 {{Template:QLannersLinks}}
+==Corinne Wong's Responses==
+#No, I was unaware of this case of research fraud before watching this video.
+#It’s crazy to think how long he got away with his manipulation. It’s hard to understand why someone would take advantage of people at a desperate and vulnerable position, like cancer, just to make money and get recognized. Moreover, he should have known he would get caught at some point, especially since he made his treatment seem so successful. He would’ve had to have known people would be suspicious if he advertises an 80% success rate when it constantly fails.
+#Data sharing allowed people to access the original data, which revealed the fraud. People could clearly see how the advertised data was manipulated to benefit his research.
+#I would be interested in learning more about the process of uncovering the data. Was the true data really just there and easy to access for people, but they just didn’t think to double check his work?
+[[User:Cwong34|Cwong34]] ([[User talk:Cwong34|talk]]) 12:39, 9 October 2017 (PDT)
+{{Cwong34}}