Class Journal Week 7

Mahrad Saeedi

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 either case, but I can't say that I was not surprised that these types of things are going on.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • My initial reaction was how ridiculous it was that these prominent, respectable entities would falsify such important information and mislead the public.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • Data sharing served the purpose of revealing these fraudulent activities that were going on in contemporary society. Furthermore, it goes to show the value in sharing data to deem it's authenticity. With data being made public, it enables us to check and trust the results we receive to make sure the information is valid.
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 how Dr. Potti specifically manipulated the data and the methods other researchers used to determine that the data was falsified. I also want to know what Dr. Potti was hoping to do by providing this false remedy. He obviously is smart enough to realize that someone would notice in regards to such a huge medical discovery, but I guess not.
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • The two cases are similar in that they both consist of falsifying specific data to obtain desired results, when clearly the results came out differently. The cases are different in that one was in regards to the automotive industry while the other involved medical research. Also in the Duke case, the data itself was manipulated while with the Volkswagon case, there was a software used to mask the true results.

Msaeedi23 (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2015 (PDT)

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.
   • When I first heard about the Volkswagen case, I felt impressed, but not in a good way. I was honestly impressed that they thought they'd be able to get away with it, and continued playing with fire for so many years. Following that, I also felt a sort of foreboding. The fact that they had managed to get away with it for so long indicated to me that there was more to the story than we initially heard. Something had to be allowing them to continue, and the possibility of an endemic problem was not implausible.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • Data sharing was integral in uncovering both of the frauds. In the Duke case, data sharing is what allowed other researchers to review and scrutinize Potti's data. Though it took several attempts for their points to be heard and proven, the fact that they were able to view the data at all is what ultimately helped to uncover the flaws in the research. In the Volkswagen case, data was not explicitly shared by Volkswagen, but was collected by researchers. The sharing and observation of this data is what allowed the inconsistencies to be uncovered, and the fraud to be revealed.
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.)
   • While I have many questions regarding the case, the major question I would like answered (though I know it is unanswerable), is what did they think would be achieved by running an experiment based on data that was clearly false? Was there a hope that somehow the hope they had that the treatment would work, or were they simply going to continue falsifying data to make it seem as though their treatment was a success?
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • The cases are similar in that they both involve the falsification of data for the benefit of an individual or company. In Potti's case, the reward was prestige and grants, and in Volkswagen's case, they were able to skimp out on improving the emissions of their vehicles, which would have been a more expensive process. The main difference between them is the availability of the data. In Potti's case, the data was relatively easily available. In Volkswagen's case, the data was kept much more secret, requiring researchers to collect and analyze data themselves.

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?
  • I was aware of the Duke case of research fraud prior to viewing this video because I had viewed it in a previous class (Cell Function!). I was also aware of the Volkswagen case, though I had not continued following it in the news.
• What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
  • My initial reaction to the Duke case was complete astonishment. It is unbelievable that the data that Dr. Potti presented in his paper remained unchecked for so many years. It is unbelievable that none of the high profile medical journals that published his paper looked into his data in detail during the peer review process, and even more amazing that his data was accepted by Duke after review from a third party at a later time. Research, especially medical research, should have all statistics checked with exquisite detail prior to even being submitted to a journal, but should definitely be reviewed during the peer review process that is ultimately meant to make sure no false information is published. It's especially disappointing that the clinical trial was not completely stopped or that the patients involved were not completely informed of the controversy of the trial prior to or during their treatment as the video mentioned that some patients were given chemotherapy that was the exact wrong match for their cancer. The Volkswagen case left me incredibly disappointed in the groups or organizations responsible for fact-checking and thorough testing because it took far too many years for the problems with emissions to be detected. It is especially unfortunate that casinos have better regulation over their software than vehicles do, as vehicles can cause incredible harm for people and the environment. In all fact-checking and testing environments, several levels of confirmation and several different tests should be run in order to prevent anyone from "hacking" the test to return preferred results.
• What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
  • Data sharing was essential in uncovering both frauds as without the released data from the Duke case, no statisticians would have been able to confirm that the numbers Dr. Potti's data presented were manipulated. It was also important in the Volkswagen case as well because the methods that were used in order to test the emissions of the vehicles was available to the public, and other methods of measuring emissions of vehicles are available to the public as well, so any data can be remeasured with the proper equipment. Without having accessible data and statistical methods that can be replicated, neither of these frauds would have been discovered, at least not for an even longer period of time.
• 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.)
  • The Duke case made me wonder how thorough peer reviewers are asked to be prior to accepting a journal. It also makes me wonder how labs and journals across the country, especially larger labs that exist in big universities, check the data that their scientists produce to ensure a lack of bias.
• How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
  • These two cases are similar in that two organizations knowingly manipulated data in order to create results that worked to their benefit. Both cases are ultimately harmful to the public, though the Duke case was more directly fatal to the cancer patients who entrusted their lives to the work presented to them by Duke. The major difference is that the Duke research had a system in place meant to check and recheck the validity of the data presented while the Volkswagen case did not quite as much of a systematic process, and therefore left more room for data manipulation.

--Anuvarsh (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2015 (PDT)

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?
  • I thought it was strange that so many people reviewed the Duke data and still found nothing wrong with it, you would think that people would be able to do their jobs. It also seems like the federal government blew it in terms of the Volkswagen case, they should expect corporations to hold profit above all else. There should have been more comprehensive tests, and while Volkswagen did something immoral they can hardly be blamed for the federal government's lack of oversight. If a company's net worth was measured in morality we probably wouldn't have any of these problems, but it's not, so act accordingly.
• What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
  • Like I said, it amazes me that there seemed to be an adequate amount of data sharing between reviewers and still Dr. Potti's data somehow got through. However, the people who uncovered the fraud seemed to have gained access to the data pretty easily so it must have been readily available. For Volkswagen the details in the article aren't quite clear but it seems to me that the data was always there and no one but those researches cared to look.
• 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.)
  • Who the people on the special review board were. It doesn't make sense that two guys accomplished what a team of people couldn't do.
• How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
  • I would argue that in both cases the fraudulent parties had a profit motive although Dr. Potti probably wouldn't admit it. They are different in that Dr. Potti's data had much more review and it is actually surprising that it got through all the stages of review that it did. For Volkswagen it probably was just a matter of exploiting a long established mundane government test or they wouldn't have been able to automate their process for thousands of cars. The test must be a pretty standard thing and as a result it must've been easy to exploit.

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

Brandon Litvak

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 of research fraud before viewing the 60 Minutes video; I was also unaware of the Volkswagen case of cheating software before reading the article.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • I was fairly disgusted and surprised by the Duke case since the serious data manipulation managed to deceive so many professional (and prestigious) journals and an entire institution. The Volkswagen case seemed a lot less surprising but it was something that brought out much discomfort (it was especially unsettling because of how recent it was).
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • With respect to the Duke case, the data were published in several journals and made available for other institutions and organizations. Analysis of the data by external parties like researchers at the MD Anderson Cancer Center and the National Cancer Institute revealed that there were fundamental issues with the data that could not have been the result of chance (the results that were found by the MD Anderson Cancer Center were shared publically via articles and statements). Data sharing is less explicit in the Volkswagen case but it is mentioned that it was researchers in two labs, one in Germany and one in the U.S., that uncovered the real (cheating) nature of the cars’ software; it is possible and likely that the two labs collaborated and shared data with other labs and with the public (thus revealing and making apparent this case of fraud).
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 why the data was not checked by authorities tied to the sponsoring institution (Duke) prior to serious publication and experimental trials. I would also like to know about the penalties faced by Anil Potti and Duke University.
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • Both of these cases are similar in the way that they both resulted in public deception for a relatively long period of time (both cases attempted to make something appear as being better and greater than it actually is). These cases are different since they both represent examples of fraud in two different fields: that of research, and that of automobile software. The Duke case also led to harm being done (via deception and improper therapy) to patients/subjects while the Volkswagen case did not (directly, at least) lead to any harm done to people.

Blitvak (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2015 (PDT)

Josh Kuroda

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 did hear about the Volkswagen case. This is probably because of the fact that the Volkswagen case happened more recently, and affected more people.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • Upon hearing about the Volkswagen case, I was not very surprised, because I didn't think it was that far-fetched that a company would program the software within a car to deceive testers. I was surprised to hear about the Duke case because of the fact that there was no winning situation for Dr. Potti. If his research was accepted and a company was started to take advantage of this discovery, he would eventually have to answer to those who would see that his method did not work. Also, I couldn't imagine someone in that position making the decision to simply manipulate data in order to feign success when the consequences are so life-changing for so many.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • The fact that the data from both cases were analyzed by third parties shows how data sharing played a role, because if it wasn't for this sharing of data, both Volkswagen and Dr. Potti would've been able to continue to deceive its consumers or patients.
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 want to know if there were any other researchers working on the research with Dr. Potti and his mentor, because then I would want to know if Dr. Potti acted alone or if he colluded with others in order to manipulate the data. I would also want to know why Duke didn't have a third party double-check the research (and the data) before moving forward and publishing the results in medical journals.
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • I think these cases are similar in that they both dealt with the manipulation of data or software. This showcases the technology and computer science involved in all sorts of industries, and illustrates why data integrity is so important. They are different because of the fact that the Duke case was arguably doomed from the start because of the fact that the huge discovery was hinged on manipulated data, whereas Volkswagen was still able to profit from their manipulation of software.

-- Jkuroda (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2015 (PDT)

Veronica Pacheco

1. Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
   • No, I wasn't aware of either of these cases prior to this assignment.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • I was not understanding Dr. Potti's and Volkswagen reasoning or thinking when it came to these cases. I didn't understand why they could just continue to work on their products rather than lie and cheat with the faulty ones they had.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • Data sharing was how each case was exposed as fraud. When the data was open to the public and their peers were able to get a better look at the numbers, things weren't adding up. In both cases, the doctor and the company had already made some major headway which means that if the data was not overlooked by their peers, they would have continued to play into their fabrication. I can only see power and money as a motive for this because somewhere along the way their good intention was diminished.
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 am interested to know how the team working on the research handled the fabrication. I imagine that working closely with the data, they couldn't have been in the dark about what was happening so why would you not say something. It's a violation of the honor code that science depends on heavily.
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • They are similar in the fact that they both imagined means of helping either people or the environment but the released products did not accomplish those goals which led to manipulation for a better outcome. They are different through the degrees of manipulation. Dr. Potti manipulated the data while Volkswagen manipulated the software which in turn gave out manipulated data.

Vpachec3 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2015 (PDT)

Erich Yanoschik

1. Were you aware of the Duke case of research fraud before viewing this video? Were you aware of the Volkswagen case?
   • I was unaware of the Duke case of research fraud, but I had read about the Volkswagen case prior.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • I almost didn't believe these cases to be true or possible, how could something like this happen? What will be done in the future to make sure this doesn't happen again? Why would someone do something like this? A bunch of questions rushed through my head, and a feeling of disappointment in my fellow man.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • Sharing the data in both cases allowed for 3rd parties to check the data to ensure academic accuracy. Manipulated data had been found that ended Duke's cancer research with Dr. Potti and Volkswagens falsified emission standards test. Thankfully both entities in each story had vigorously pursued their results to ensure academic/product integrity and hold those accountable for their misconduct.
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'd like to know how Dr. Potti was able to fool all his colleagues and those who reviewed his findings. Also, how did he manipulate the data? There must of been a vast amount of code that he would of had to alter, and wouldn't that be seen?
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • These two cases are similar in the fact that they both kept pulling the wool over the publics eyes. Even after a first suspension of the Duke cancer research, Dr. Potti had his colleagues convinced and kept the facade going. There is a clear lack of ethical judgement between both parties, they both knew what they were doing but benefited from their lies at the expense of others.Both of these cases involved monetary gain along with greater notoriety. Volkswagen earned over 51 million in Eco friendly bonuses from the government, for something that apparently was not true. In the duke case it was one man who constructed the whole operation, whereas with Volkswagen it seems to be the whole market. Every manufacturer in the industry has almost had some sort of sanction upheld due to unethical practices or false advertising. This is quite concerning, is every car manufacturer unethical and searching for the best way to cheat standards rather than fix the problem or create a solution?

--Eyanosch (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2015 (PDT)

Brandon Klein

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 case of research fraud at Duke before viewing this video. However, I had been following the Volkswagen case since shortly after the story was released.
2. What are your initial reactions to hearing about both of these?
   • I find these instances of research fraud to be both quite upsetting and concerning. It initially was very disheartening for me to confront that, in both instances, individuals placed petty material gains above not only their senses of honor as innovators, but the betterment of the multitudes impacted by their products. The Duke case was particularly impacting to me because the deception made by Dr. Potti, a healthcare provider who should live by the mantra of "Primum non nocere", exploited terminally ill individuals. Not only did he deceive them by falsifying his data, but Dr. Potti gave hundreds of patients false hope that his research could save them. The fact that this was allowed to happen is very concerning. Until recently, I had imagined that all published research went through an intense process of revision and verification to ensure that this knowledge entering the public domain could be trusted. However, in critiquing the Duke case along with some of the darker aspects of Watson and Crick's Nature paper on DNA's structure recently, I have found that my assumption is not valid. Many issues of fabrication and exaggeration slip through the cracks of our current revision system, and this is entirely unacceptable. Although not as directly involved with human health, the case of Volkswagen's fraud is equally unacceptable. I was upset by this reveal much in the same way as I was upset by the Duke case, because it reinforced the idea that producers often cheat the public for their own material advancement. Volkswagen could have chosen to invest time into engineering a better diesel vehicle or a different product entirely, but instead they chose to lie for extra profit. The fact that the price of this lie was the quality of our environment, another public health issue, was further cause worry. Beyond this, the points articulated about how easy it is to release with cheating software were frightening. It made me wonder whether this type of problem is far more widespread than we care to believe, just waiting to be exposed. We certainly place absurd levels of trust in our technology.
3. What role did data sharing play in uncovering both of these frauds?
   • Data sharing played an essential role in uncovering both of these frauds. In the Duke case, attention was brought to the fact that Dr. Potti's results were not verifiable by the lone efforts of Drs. Baggerly and Coombes from the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Whereas most of the public seemed to simply want to believe that Dr. Potti's breakthrough was real, these two thoroughly investigated the publicly available data and were dissatisfied with it. Thanks to their persistent efforts, Potti's supervisor Dr. Nevins looked into the data and found many blatant cases of falsification. Yet even Dr. Nevins admitted that he wanted to believe the discovery and would not have questioned its validity if it hadn't been questioned thanks to being shared with other experts. Although Volkswagen did not publicly release their code or emissions data to be analyzed, it was the sharing of results gathered by independent investigators that made uncovering this case of fraud possible. The initial attempt to reveal Volkswagen's fraud may not have succeed, but it motivated a collaboration between two different labs across the world. Only by comparing their results and sharing data were they able to demonstrate that Volkswagen had indeed crafted software to cheat emission testing on its diesel vehicles.
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 methods were used to detect the falsifications in Dr. Potti's data. As an external observer, I imagine there may be some difficult in distinguishing between intentionally altered data and noise present from the randomness of data. There must be some technique to account for this noise and detect variation that exceeds the expected randomness of a data set. I believe learning about this would be interesting.
5. How are these two cases similar and different from each other?
   • The Duke and Volkswagen cases are similar in many ways. Both involved the falsification of data, which in turn led to improper conclusions being drawn by the public. Both instances of falsification were further carried out for personal gain. In the case of Dr. Potti, this gain was grants and prestige, whereas the gain in Volkswagen's case was more strictly material. Finally, both instances of fraud were not identified until after the misrepresented products had been adopted by the public. These two cases are characterized by some fundamental differences as well. For example, Dr. Potti's falsification was carried out by him alone, whereas Volkswagen's decision to commit fraud was likely supported by a group of corporate executives. Additionally, Dr. Potti manipulated raw data that was available to the public, whereas Volkswagen manipulated private tools that influenced the collection of data.

-- Bklein7 (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2015 (PDT)

Mary Alverson

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 Volkswagen case, since it was all over the news not too long ago. I was not, however, aware of the Duke case. I suspect that this is because his trial directly affected 112 people instead of the millions of cars. Also, the patients were lured into false hopes, but still did get some form of treatment for their cancer, so defenders of Dr.Potti could say that he didn’t do physical harm to the patients. In contrast, it can clearly be seen that Volkswagen harmed the environment by allowing for the release of illegal amounts of toxins.
2. When I heard about Volkswagen, I was outraged. They were prioritizing money over not just laws but also the planet’s well-being as a whole. I found it hard to believe that people would actually sign off or even create software to do such a thing. I was very surprised and annoyed at the Duke fraud as well, because it not only denied the patients of possibly better experimental treatments, but also gave false hope and misused their trust. It is hard to believe that Dr.Potti actually thought he was helping people when he had to falsify his data to prove his theorem.
3. In the Volkswagen case, two different labs, one in Germany and one in West Virginia, were able to confront Volkswagen managers together about their test results. They uncovered the actual amount of pollutants in the emissions of their cars and shared that information with the public so that the corporation could be punished, and could also be forced to right their wrongs (by recalling many cars, and also just making cars that release adequate amounts of pollutants into the air in the first place). In the Duke case, it was data sharing that made Dr.Potti’s research widely known. Although there were questions, it was not until a colleague of Dr.Potti’s reviewed the data himself that the data manipulation was brought to light. Although the data sharing led to the questions, the sharing also led to the false hope that so many had after the article circulated through publications.
4. I was confused that the group of people who reviewed the data did not find the blatant manipulations that were found later. If they were so obvious, why couldn’t the “independent” group find them? Even after three years?
5. They are similar because they both involve people doing things they know that are wrong for motives such as money and fame. They were also similar because they had negative effects on innocent others, and because they were discovered by researchers fact checking things that were already supposed to be proven. They are different because Volkswagen created a software systems with bad intentions from the get go – cheat the emission tests. The Duke researchers began with good intentions, but when their data did not support what they wanted, manipulated their data to fit the outcome they desired.

--Malverso (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2015 (PDT)