|
CAN WE TRUST
THE SCIENTISTS?
The word SCIENCE or
"scientific" is accepted as the watchword for
purity and truth. If it was published
in a scientific or medical journal, it must be "true" is the widely held
belief. But what if the scientists are lying, faking or stealing their
data and trying to cover up their own crimes and those of other people?
I'm not talking about mistakes or even false doctrine. I'm talking about
cynically manipulating figures, or making them up; lying and cheating in a
very serious domain that leads mankind down dangerous
paths. Falsified medical data could (and does) cost lives.
What happens to researchers who
get caught lying? They get hired by drug companies, of course!
I'm sure this shocking report is only the tip of the iceberg.
The investigators can't even keep pace with the number
of complaints received. Fraud is endemic within the medical academic
fraternity. How dare they criticize others for not being
scientific when they can't even keep their own house in order? [K
Scott-Mumby - editor]
article by
Martha Mendoza from ASSOCIATED PRESS
Allegations of misconduct by U.S.
researchers reached record highs last year as the Department of Health and
Human Services received 274 complaints — 50 percent higher than 2003 and
the most since 1989 when the federal government established a program to
deal with scientific misconduct.
Chris Pascal, director of the federal Office of Research Integrity, said
its 28 staffers and $7 million annual budget haven't kept pace with the
allegations. The result: Only 23 cases were closed last year. Of those,
eight individuals were found guilty of research misconduct. In the past 15
years, the office has confirmed about 185 cases of scientific misconduct.
Research suggests this is but a small fraction of all the incidents of
fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. In a survey published June 9 in
the journal Nature, about 1.5 percent of 3,247 researchers who responded
admitted to falsification or plagiarism. (One in three admitted to some
type of professional misbehavior.)
On the night of his 12th wedding anniversary, Dr. Andrew Friedman was
terrified.
This brilliant surgeon and researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital and
Harvard Medical School feared that he was about to lose everything — his
career, his family, the life he'd built — because his boss was coming
closer and closer to the truth:
For the past three years, Friedman had been faking — actually making up —
data in some of the respected, peer-reviewed studies he had published in
top medical journals.
"It is difficult for me to describe the degree of panic and irrational
thought that I was going through," he would later tell an inquiry panel at
Harvard.
On this night, March 13, 1995, he had been ordered in writing by his
department chair to clear up what appeared to be suspicious data.
But Friedman didn't clear things up.
"I did something which was the worst possible thing I could have done," he
testified.
He went to the medical record room, and for the next three or four hours
he pulled out permanent medical files of a handful of patients. Then,
covered up his lies, scribbling in the information he needed to support
his study.
"I created data. I made it up. I also made up patients that were
fictitious," he testified.
Friedman's wife met him at the door when he came home that night. He wept
uncontrollably. The next morning he had an emergency appointment with his
psychiatrist.
But he didn't tell the therapist the truth, and his lies continued for 10
more days, during which time he delivered a letter, and copies of the
doctored files, to his boss. Eventually he broke down, admitting first to
his wife and psychiatrist, and later to his colleagues and managers, what
he had been doing.
Friedman formally confessed, retracted his articles, apologized to
colleagues and was punished. Today he has resurrected his career, as
senior director of clinical research at Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc.,
a Johnson & Johnson company.
He refused to speak with the Associated Press. But his case, recorded in a
seven-foot-high stack of documents at the Massachusetts Board of
Registration in Medicine, tells a story of one man's struggle with power,
lies and the crushing pressure of academia.
Some other cases have made headlines:
_On July 18, Eric Poehlman, once a prominent nutrition researcher, will be
sentenced in federal court in Vermont for fabricating research data to
obtain a $542,000 federal grant while working as a professor at the
University of Vermont College of Medicine. He faces up to five years in
prison. Poehlman, 49, made up research between 1992 and 2000 on issues
like menopause, aging and hormone supplements to win millions of dollars
in grant money from the federal government. He is the first researcher to
be permanently barred from ever receiving federal research grants again.
In 2001, while he was being investigated, Poehlman left the medical school
and was awarded a $1 million chair in nutrition and metabolism at the
University of Montreal, where officials say they were unaware of his
problems. He resigned in January when his contract expired.
_In March, Dr. Gary Kammer, a Wake Forest University rheumatology
professor and leading lupus expert, was found to have made up two families
and their medical conditions in grant applications to the National
Institutes of Health. He has resigned from the university and has been
suspended from receiving federal grants for three years.
_In November, 2004, federal officials found that Dr. Ali Sultan, an
award-winning malaria researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health,
had plagiarized text and figures, and falsified his data — substituting
results from one type of malaria for another — on a grant application for
federal funds to study malaria drugs. When brought before an inquiry
committee, Sultan tried to pin the blame on a postdoctoral student. Sultan
resigned and is now a faculty member at Weill Cornell Medical College in
Qatar, according to a spokeswoman there.
While the cases are high-profile, scientists have been cheating for
decades.
In 1974, Dr. William Summerlin, a top-ranking Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Institute researcher, used a marker to make black patches of fur on white
mice in an attempt to prove his new skin graft technique was working.
His case prompted Al Gore, then a young Democratic congressman from
Tennessee, to hold the first congressional hearings on the issue.
"At the base of our involvement in research lies the trust of American
people and the integrity of the scientific exercise," said Gore at the
time. As a result of their hearings, Congress passed a law in 1985
requiring institutions that receive federal money for scientific research
to have some system to report rulebreakers.
"Often we're confronted with people who are brilliant, absolutely
incredible researchers, but that's not what makes them great scientists.
It's the character," said Debbi Gilad, a research compliance and integrity
officer at the University of California, Davis, which has taken a lead on
handling scientific misconduct.
David Wright, a Michigan State University professor who has researched why
scientists cheat, said there are four basic reasons: some sort of mental
disorder; foreign nationals who learned somewhat different scientific
standards; inadequate mentoring; and, most commonly, tremendous and
increasing professional pressure to publish studies.
His inability to handle that pressure, Friedman testified, was his
downfall.
"And it was almost as though you're on a treadmill that starts out slowly
and gradually increases in speed. And it happens so gradually you don't
realize that eventually you're just hoping you don't fall off," he told a
magistrate during a state hearing in 1995. "You're sprinting near the end
and taking it all you can not to fall off."
At the time he started cheating, Friedman was in his late 30s, married and
a father of two young children. Following the path of his father,
grandfather and uncle who were all doctors and medical researchers, he was
an associate professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology
at Harvard Medical School and chief of the department of reproductive
endocrinology at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
His reputation was tremendous and his work groundbreaking. His 30-page
resume highlighted numerous awards and honors, lectures in Canada, Europe
and Australia, and more than 150 articles, book chapters, reviews and
abstracts. Of those, 58 were original research articles, where he had
designed studies, conducted clinical trials, enrolled patients, collected
and analyzed data and made conclusions.
In the end, investigators found — and Friedman confessed — to making up
information for three separate journal articles (one of them never
published) involving hormonal treatment of gynecological conditions.
He testified that he was working 80 to 90 hours a week, seeing patients
two days a week, doing surgery one day a week, supervising medical
residents, serving on as many as 10 different committees at the hospital
and the medical school and putting on national medical conferences.
He did seek help, both from a psychiatrist, who counseled him to cut back,
and from his boss, who demanded Friedman increase his research and refused
to reduce Friedman's patient load.
As good as Friedman was as a doctor, surgeon and researcher, he was
actually a lousy cheater. One thing that brought about his demise, in
fact, was that the initials he used for fictitious patients were the same
as those of residents and faculty members in his program.
Unlike many scientists who file immediate lawsuits when they're caught,
Friedman was repentant, resigning from his positions at both Brigham and
Women's, and Harvard.
In 1996, Friedman agreed to be excluded for three years from working on
federally funded research. During the next three years he consulted with
drug companies, he paid a $10,000 fine to the state of Massachusetts and
surrendered his medical license for a year, became very active with the
American Red Cross, donating more than 500 hours, and attended several
lectures on ethics and record-keeping.
"Andy can never undo the damage that his actions have caused. However, he
has paid the price — his academic career is ruined, his reputation
sullied, and his personal shame unremitting," wrote Dr. Charles Lockwood,
then chair of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of
Medicine, in a letter on Friedman's behalf.
In 1999, after successfully petitioning to get his license reinstated, he
went to work as director of women's health care at Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceuticals. The job, which he still has, involves designing and
reviewing clinical trials for hormonal birth control, writing package
insert labels and lecturing to doctors. Lately he's appeared on television
and in newspaper articles responding to concerns about the safety of the
birth control patch.
Mary Anne Wyatt, a retired biochemist in Natick, Mass., is one of several
former patients.
"I think it's not at all surprising that a drug company would hire
somebody who is very comfortable with hiding the effects of very dangerous
drugs," said Wyatt, who unsuccessfully sued him.
Ortho-McNeil spokeswoman Bonnie Jacobs said the company was well aware of
Friedman's history when it hired him. "He is an excellent doctor, an asset
to our company," she said.
copyright © 2005 ASSOCIATED PRESS
|