Class Journal Week 7
Contents |
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, surprisingly enough.
What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?
It doesn't really surprise me that something like that would happen, but it's still rotten that people would lie and be involved with fraud. I really don't understand how people can think they can get away with something like that and not get caught. I'm really glad they got caught, and that the data was available to be checked out and analyzed.
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.)
It would be interesting to know how the doctor altered the information so that the results would be in his favor. I would also like to learn more about how the programmers/data analyzers specifically went about finding errors in the data.
Ajvree (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2013 (PDT)
Lauren Magee
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
Dillon Williams
- I was not aware that this type of fraud was taking place prior to watching the video.
- I am more shocked than anything that somebody would be willing to feed on the false hopes of others in an attempt to gain wealth by offering a false cure. I don't typically associate this type of behavior with the scientific world, especially any fields revolving around health care.
- It appeared to me that the data sharing was very important. It seemed like the fact that the data was being shared was what led to the discovery of the fraud in the first place (or at least provided initial proof of the fraud).
- I would like to know why there seemed to be so many people convinced that the treatment worked, I would also like to know any other effects that the failed procedure may have produced.
-Dwilliams (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2013 (PDT)
Tauras
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- I was not aware of this research fraud happening before I viewed this video.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- I was unaware of this incident before I viewed the video.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
Katrina Sherbina
- I believe that I may have heard of this case before seeing the video.
- I was shocked when I watched the video about the case. I would think that every effort would be made to verify the data before moving forward with a clinical trial that would raise people's hopes up.
- Dr. Keith Baggerly and Dr. Kevin Coombes from the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston analyzed the data that Dr. Potti published and, in the process, found several errors in the data. They suspected that these errors were a result of Dr. Potti reversing some of the data. Later on, researchers at the National Cancer Institute also analyzed the data and found problems with it.
- I do not entirely understand how the outside investigators that Duke University asked to analyze Dr. Potti's data found nothing wrong while Dr. Baggerly and Dr. Coombes found errors with the data. Did these outside investigators receive data that was different from what Dr. Baggerly and Dr. Coombes analyzed? Who were these outside investigators that Duke University asked to verify Dr. Potti's results?
Viktoria Kuehn
- I had heard that there was a case at a University regarding misinformation of this kind, but I did not know the details.
- I was surprised that this kind of information can get to much publicity and still have mistakes in it. It is comforting to think that such published information regarding humans is always checked multiple times for accuracy, but this case reminds us that these things do still happen. I could not believe that he was still practicing and that Poti could submit information that was faulted.
- IF this data had not been accesible it would have been impossible to find the error. The error was found when they were trying to reproduce the experiment and looked into the detail of the project.
- I am interested in seeing what they have done in terms of getting the patients family members some sort of compensation and how the people who were involved are doing today.
Vkuehn (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2013 (PDT)
Mitchell Petredis
- I was not aware of this specific case if research fraud before watching the video; however, I'm not really surprised at this, since fraud occurs almost everywhere.
- It's very sad and unfortunate to hear that sick and desperate people were deceived in hopes of curing their illnesses by such a renowned university as Duke. It goes to show how important curation of the data is so that scientists can treat people properly with good intentions.
- Data sharing allowed other people to easily access the data and discover errors within it, ultimately leading to the discovery that the data was manipulated to be perceived as groundbreaking research.
- I would like to know why Potti is now a cancer doctor in South Carolina despite all the retractions of his published works. Why did Duke trust in Potti without double checking his data, what parts of the data were manipulated, and what has happened with this case since the 60 Minutes video?
Mpetredi (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2013 (PDT)Mitchell Petredis
Lena Hunt
- No, I was unaware of this research fraud before now.
- I was horrified. First, changing or modifying your data is pretty much the worst thing a person can do in science. Honesty about scientific findings is something they teach 3rd graders at science fairs. Second, he changed data in a way the significantly affected people struggling with cancer, which is probably the worst possible scenario to fudge data in. I could not believe a person actually did this.
- Data sharing helped to uncover the fraud because researchers at other institutes could review the data. Even though the data had been altered, the bioinformatic specialists were able to detect that it was not right.
- I wish I knew what could drive a person to alter such significant data. He can't have thought that no one would realize his findings were not working out as he had planned. I would be interested to hear more about him.
