Class Journal Week 5 - Revision history

Kdahlquist: add category shared

2024-04-30T16:33:57Z

add category shared

Nstojan1-new: Edited shared journal

2024-02-16T23:49:57Z

Edited shared journal

Asandle1: /* Dean Symonds */ response

2024-02-16T03:59:41Z

‎Dean Symonds: response

Asandle1: /* Hailey */ signed

2024-02-16T03:57:59Z

‎Hailey: signed

Asandle1: /* Hailey */ response

2024-02-16T03:57:45Z

‎Hailey: response

Asandle1: /* Andrew Sandler */ signed as my work

2024-02-16T03:55:05Z

‎Andrew Sandler: signed as my work

Asandle1: /* Andrew Sandler */ added bullets

2024-02-16T03:54:31Z

‎Andrew Sandler: added bullets

Asandle1: Added my section and answered the questions

2024-02-16T03:53:29Z

Added my section and answered the questions

Kmill104: answering reflection questions

2024-02-15T07:33:48Z

answering reflection questions

Hivanson: /* Hailey */ signed

2024-02-15T07:14:10Z

‎Hailey: signed

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 30 April 2024
Line 69:		Line 69:
	What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)		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 what has been done to make sure this doesn't happen again. There were clearly so many issues yet people did nothing. I also want to know if Dr. Potti and the doctors/researchers involved are allowed to practice again because this seems like he knew what was happening.		*I would like to know what has been done to make sure this doesn't happen again. There were clearly so many issues yet people did nothing. I also want to know if Dr. Potti and the doctors/researchers involved are allowed to practice again because this seems like he knew what was happening.
		+
		+	[[Category:Shared]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:49, 16 February 2024
Line 61:		Line 61:

	[[User:Asandle1\|Asandle1]] ([[User talk:Asandle1\|talk]]) 19:55, 15 February 2024 (PST)		[[User:Asandle1\|Asandle1]] ([[User talk:Asandle1\|talk]]) 19:55, 15 February 2024 (PST)
		+
		+	==Natalija==
		+	What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?
		+	*I was shocked and scared to see that a doctor would do something like this. Especially when they said that the drug could be harming them. Having cancer is scary enough, but then thinking that there is a drug that could help you, which in the end could cause you more harm is devastating. I'm surprised that Duke continued with the discovery even after there were alarming things being seen.
		+	What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?
		+	*Data sharing played a big role in uncovering this fraud because without it the people would have not found errors in his findings. Ultimately, the data sharing saved lives because Dr. Potti manipulated the data and people were able to realize and see this despite the university and outside investigators not thinking anything is wrong.
		+	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 what has been done to make sure this doesn't happen again. There were clearly so many issues yet people did nothing. I also want to know if Dr. Potti and the doctors/researchers involved are allowed to practice again because this seems like he knew what was happening.

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 [[User:Ckapla12|Ckapla12]] ([[User talk:Ckapla12|talk]]) 19:54, 14 February 2024 (PST)
 ==Dean Symonds==
 #My initial thoughts are that this is obviously frightening because doctors are people that we are supposed to trust more than anybody, and this is a case in which a doctor is prioritizing their own prestige and achievements over helping patients.
 #Data sharing played a crucial role. For if the other doctors did not have access to this data, they would possibly never have uncovered the fact that the data was fabricated. Data sharing can clearly lead to many different problems, but cases like these illustrate why it is necessary.
 #What happened to Dr. Potti after the events of this case? Is he still a practicing doctor? Did his career end with this case? Is his reputation still affected by this case?

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 It is crazy to put your name and career on the line to tell a big lie that would eventually be caught. Additionally, I was shocked that Dr. Potti was able to get away with lying about being a Rhodes scholar for as long as he did; it makes me wonder how many fraudulent resumes and CVs there are floating around that don't get a second glance.
-Responding to [[User:Hivanson|Hailey]]: It is crazy to me. We talked about this sort of thing in my business ethics class and a lot of the class said they have lied on their resumes and don't think it is a problem, that it is almost a prerequisite to get a job, which I think is insane.
+Responding to [[User:Hivanson|Hailey]]: It is crazy to me. We talked about this sort of thing in my business ethics class and a lot of the class said they have lied on their resumes and don't think it is a problem, that it is almost a prerequisite to get a job, which I think is insane. [[User:Asandle1|Asandle1]] ([[User talk:Asandle1|talk]]) 19:57, 15 February 2024 (PST)
 *What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 *What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?
 It is crazy to put your name and career on the line to tell a big lie that would eventually be caught. Additionally, I was shocked that Dr. Potti was able to get away with lying about being a Rhodes scholar for as long as he did; it makes me wonder how many fraudulent resumes and CVs there are floating around that don't get a second glance.
 *What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?
 When data was analyzed to verify results, some findings were unable to be explained and errors were found. Had data not been shared, this external verification would not have been completed and the tumor-drug match program would have been investigated much later if at all.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, 16 February 2024
Line 55:		Line 55:

	I want to understand how the independent investigative team duke hired didn’t see any issues with the data.		I want to understand how the independent investigative team duke hired didn’t see any issues with the data.
		+
		+	[[User:Asandle1\|Asandle1]] ([[User talk:Asandle1\|talk]]) 19:55, 15 February 2024 (PST)

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 <b>Initial reactions and thoughts to hearing about this case:</b>
-- The intro could be an issue because 60 minutes is dumbing down the explanation for the average audience, but it mentions how somehow matching a chemo drug to a persons genetics could work. That doesn’t make sense since all types of cancerous cells have different mutations that led to them being cancerous. Just matching someone’s DNA would be the same as saying this person likes hot dogs and not hamburgers so we should use XYZ cancer therapy on them.
+*The intro could be an issue because 60 minutes is dumbing down the explanation for the average audience, but it mentions how somehow matching a chemo drug to a persons genetics could work. That doesn’t make sense since all types of cancerous cells have different mutations that led to them being cancerous. Just matching someone’s DNA would be the same as saying this person likes hot dogs and not hamburgers so we should use XYZ cancer therapy on them.
-- It’s not the biggest medical fraud ever. There are frauds that entire disciplines were built on that we are only uncovering like the fraud in a major paper about Alzheimer’s.
+*It’s not the biggest medical fraud ever. There are frauds that entire disciplines were built on that we are only uncovering like the fraud in a major paper about Alzheimer’s.
-- I pitched using AI to detect data fraud and inconsistencies to the LMU Startup Weekend and everyone thought the idea was stupid. I still think it would be paradigm shifting and highly lucrative.
+*I pitched using AI to detect data fraud and inconsistencies to the LMU Startup Weekend and everyone thought the idea was stupid. I still think it would be paradigm shifting and highly lucrative.
-- I dont know enough about cancer treatment but it sounds like the scientific community saw something that looked like a breakthrough but and a money maker. They took shortcuts and started working with patients way sooner than they should have. There were clearly a lot of forces driving this, and it is definitely something lots of people do in those situations on the business side. Sometimes it is important to slow down and be “fearful when others are greedy” and visa versa.
+*I dont know enough about cancer treatment but it sounds like the scientific community saw something that looked like a breakthrough but and a money maker. They took shortcuts and started working with patients way sooner than they should have. There were clearly a lot of forces driving this, and it is definitely something lots of people do in those situations on the business side. Sometimes it is important to slow down and be “fearful when others are greedy” and visa versa.
-- It sounded like Duke was doing the right thing but i am confused how the committee could decide he was correct if he wasn’t.
+*It sounded like Duke was doing the right thing but i am confused how the committee could decide he was correct if he wasn’t.
-- I feel bad for the people who were affected by this. And the manipulation of the data is disgusting.
+*I feel bad for the people who were affected by this. And the manipulation of the data is disgusting.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:53, 16 February 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:

	[[User:Kmill104\|Kmill104]] ([[User talk:Kmill104\|talk]]) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (PST)		[[User:Kmill104\|Kmill104]] ([[User talk:Kmill104\|talk]]) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (PST)
		+
		+	==Andrew Sandler==
		+	<b>Initial reactions and thoughts to hearing about this case:</b>
		+
		+	- The intro could be an issue because 60 minutes is dumbing down the explanation for the average audience, but it mentions how somehow matching a chemo drug to a persons genetics could work. That doesn’t make sense since all types of cancerous cells have different mutations that led to them being cancerous. Just matching someone’s DNA would be the same as saying this person likes hot dogs and not hamburgers so we should use XYZ cancer therapy on them.
		+	- It’s not the biggest medical fraud ever. There are frauds that entire disciplines were built on that we are only uncovering like the fraud in a major paper about Alzheimer’s.
		+	- I pitched using AI to detect data fraud and inconsistencies to the LMU Startup Weekend and everyone thought the idea was stupid. I still think it would be paradigm shifting and highly lucrative.
		+	- I dont know enough about cancer treatment but it sounds like the scientific community saw something that looked like a breakthrough but and a money maker. They took shortcuts and started working with patients way sooner than they should have. There were clearly a lot of forces driving this, and it is definitely something lots of people do in those situations on the business side. Sometimes it is important to slow down and be “fearful when others are greedy” and visa versa.
		+	- It sounded like Duke was doing the right thing but i am confused how the committee could decide he was correct if he wasn’t.
		+	- I feel bad for the people who were affected by this. And the manipulation of the data is disgusting.
		+
		+
		+	<b>What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?</b>
		+
		+	Data sharing was the only reason the fraud was uncovered. I worry what happens now where AI can quickly and easily fabricate data.
		+
		+	<b>What additional information would you like to know about this case?</b>
		+
		+	I want to understand how the independent investigative team duke hired didn’t see any issues with the data.

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:33, 15 February 2024
Line 29:		Line 29:
	#What happened to Dr. Potti after the events of this case? Is he still a practicing doctor? Did his career end with this case? Is his reputation still affected by this case?		#What happened to Dr. Potti after the events of this case? Is he still a practicing doctor? Did his career end with this case? Is his reputation still affected by this case?
	[[User:Msymond1\|Msymond1]] ([[User talk:Msymond1\|talk]]) 22:40, 14 February 2024 (PST)		[[User:Msymond1\|Msymond1]] ([[User talk:Msymond1\|talk]]) 22:40, 14 February 2024 (PST)
		+
		+	==Katie Miller==
		+	#What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case? I was shocked that so many people were deceived by Dr. Potti and that he was able to get away with this fraud for so long. If it wasn't him manipulating the data like he claims, I think it is incredibly irresponsible that this manipulation wasn't realized for several years. I'm also surprised that it was in the field of cancer research that this occurred, as there are so many people who are either impacted by cancer diagnoses or are involved in finding a cure. Dr. Potti was very bold to fabricate data in a field that has so many researchers, but it was likely the prestige of finding a cure like this one that caused him to manipulate his data.
		+	#What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud? The data involved in this fraud was shared to several high profile databases that did not notice that they were receiving manipulated data. For many people who accessed his papers, they likely didn't consider that the data had been manipulated as it came from a reputable database. But, because the data was available to access, the fabricated data was eventually discovered and clinical trials were stopped, though this did take the trials being paused, resumed, and then finally stopped.
		+	#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 if Potti ever faced legal repercussions for what he did, or if they even confirmed that it was him who had manipulated the data, as he claims it was not.
		+
		+	[[User:Kmill104\|Kmill104]] ([[User talk:Kmill104\|talk]]) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (PST)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 *What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
 I'm curious how they claimed to be able to match each person's specific case to its proper drug. As we discussed in class on 2/13/2024, there are infinite genetic sequences, and to claim to be able to match that sequence to an ideal drug without having spent years collecting data and writing algorithms to match tumor to drug should raise more red flags than it seemed to have done. Though I haven't looked into it; maybe database building and writing a program was part of the study/claims.
 ==Charlotte==