Winegate: Red wine health researcher falsified data

This image shows a red wine glass.

Image via Wikipedia

From Medical News Today, word of a major failure of peer review spanning years and 11 journals.

Researcher Who Studied Benefits Of Red Wine Falsified Data Says University

An extensive misconduct investigation that took three years to complete and produced a 60,000-page report, concludes that a researcher who has come to prominence in recent years for his investigations into the beneficial properties of resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, “is guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data”.

In a statement published on the university’s news website on Wednesday, the University of Connecticut (UConn) Health Center said the investigation has led them to inform 11 scientific journals that had published studies conducted by Dr Dipak K. Das, a professor in the unversity’s Department of Surgery and director of its Cardiovascular Research Center.

The internal investigation, which covered seven years of work in Das’s lab, was triggered by an anonyomous allegation of “research irregularities” in 2008.

Philip Austin, UConn’s interim vice president for health affairs, said:

“We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country.”

According to a report from the Associated Press (AP), Dr Nir Barzilai, whose team conducts resveratrol research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, says Das is not a major player in the field.

Barzilai told AP lots of labs around the world are conducting extensive research into resveratrol, with encouraging results, and the new allegation will not make a material difference.

Full article here – h/t to WUWT reader Mark Johnson

About these ads
This entry was posted in Peer review and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to Winegate: Red wine health researcher falsified data

  1. jim says:

    Where’s the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) on Climate Research and the IPCC?

  2. David says:

    MMM… is it worth carrying on taking my Res V. plus ??

  3. pat says:

    this would seem to be not O/T -

    13 Jan: UK Daily Mail: Who’d have predicted that? Blundering Met Office weathermen are handed even bigger bonuses
    The performance-related bonuses, up from £2.6million the previous year, were revealed by the Department for Business yesterday in response to a question from Sammy Wilson MP.
    Mr Wilson, Democratic Unionist Party MP for East Antrim, said: ‘It’s a bit ironic in the week that the Prime Minister has talked about ending this bonus culture and bonuses for failure, that a government body has awarded its staff a 30 per cent hike.
    ‘This was the year that it got the weather dramatically wrong, when we had the coldest winter after they predicted it was going to be one of the warmest…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085748/Met-forecasters-wrongly-predicted-freezing-winter-BBQ-summer-receive-30-boost-BONUSES.html

  4. Layne Blanchard says:

    Something tells me I’ll still be drinking wine….

  5. AEGeneral says:

    “Dr Nir Barzilai, whose team conducts resveratrol research at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, says Das is not a major player in the field.”

    “…the Health Center has declined nearly $900,000 in federal grants awarded to Das.”

    So just how much does a major player in this field receive in federal grants?

  6. Jeff L says:

    Bummer …. but I still did enjoy a nice Okanagan Syrah this evening after snowboarding in the Nelson BC area today. Canadian wines have come a long ways! Good job, eh !

  7. Jeff L says:

    Now seriously, I won’t hold my breath hoping similar corrections are made (as appropriate) with climate research publications, but I do hope the climategate emails stimulate similar investigations.

  8. jorgekafkazar says:

    And the beat goes on: “Barzilai told AP lots of labs around the world are conducting extensive research into resveratrol, with encouraging results, and the new allegation will not make a material difference.”

    What do you want to bet the entire line of inquiry will turn out to be tainted by bias?

  9. kbray in california says:

    India produces a good share of tricksters.
    Beware in your business.

  10. TomRude says:

    No need for research as we all know that wine in moderate quantities is good for health: in French clinics 40 years ago, a glass of wine was given to recovering patients…

  11. Steve Schapel says:

    What on earth can cause a misconduct report to be 60,000 pages? How many words does it take to say the guy is a cheat? 60,000 pages – that’s more than the Encyclopaedia Brittanica! Must be a typo?

  12. kbray in california says:

    Deepak Das should use ConnU on his resume instead of UConn.

  13. Jean-Marie Mengeot says:

    Cheers

  14. pat says:

    this is also summarised on the UK Met Office story page…OUCH!

    12 Jan: UK Telegraph: South Africa weather forecasters threatened with jail if predictions wrong
    By Dan Newling in Cape Town
    Independent forecasters have been told they could be imprisoned for up to ten years – or fined up to £800,000 – if they issue incorrect severe weather warnings without official permission.
    The threat is contained in a new law designed to prevent panic and economic damage caused by false predictions of gale force winds, flash flooding or drought.
    The proposed amendment to South Africa’s Weather Service Bill would mean that anyone wanting to issue a severe weather warning would first need to get written permission from the country’s official national weather service.
    If found guilty of breaching the law, first offenders could face up to five years in prison or a five million rand (£400,000) fine.
    Repeat offenders face a maximum of 10 years imprisonment or a ten million rand (£800,000) fine…ETC ETC
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9010030/South-Africa-weather-forecasters-threatened-with-jail-if-predictions-wrong.html

  15. Pat Frank says:

    It’s good to see a university do the right thing. And let’s notice UConn is taking a pretty big hit in the grant money department. They’ve suspended $900k in Das’ grant money. He’s been there for 26 years, and the grant cycle is ~5 years. So they’re looking at losing $2-3 million over the truncation of his career.

    From this, one can surmise that the UEA, UVA, and UPenn administrative hierarchy are ethically smarmy rather than merely venal.

    Resveratrol is a pretty good antioxidant regardless, by the way, and it’s not very expensive anymore. So, if you’re into quenching metabolic free radicals and suppressing background inflammation, it’s a worthy supplement.

  16. Samurai says:

    Why don’t they do the same level of investigation of the IPCC??? (sarc)

    The Climate Bible is so full of holes and fabricated, made up, manipulated, coerced, skewed, adjusted, modified, etc. data many should be in jail.

    Gee, I wonder why??? (more sarc.)

    Seriously, what exactly will it take to finally put an end the CAGW theory? Is it grassroots thing, where it’s just a matter of time before the IPCC adjusts climate sensitivity down to such a low level, that taxpayers finally just get fed up and fire the politicians that advocate CAGW?

    You’d think Climategate 1 & 2 would have done them in (Thanks Anthony for the great analysis and time you spent on this) but it just seems to go on and on, with more CO2 laws passed, CO2 taxes implemented, money wasted on expensive/inefficient alternative energy projects/subsidies… It’s all just so frustrating….

    Anyway, WUWT, keep up the excellent work! You’re doing an incredible job and it is most appreciated.

  17. a jones says:

    For general quaffing I prefer white wine myself.

    Not that I have anything against a fine red burgundy, or a good barolo or even a old rioja for that matter.

    Claret I can take or leave and new world red wines I prefer to leave, if I want to be hit in the face by the flavour of blackcurrants I prefer to buy Ribena: a famous English blackcurrant syrup brand.

    As for the health benefits I find wine most beneficial.

    As for absurd health claims backed with meaningless statistical garbage I have no use for them. A current one is that eating processed meat increases the chance of pancreatic cancer by some 20%. Golly gosh. Isn’t going to put me off my bacon sandwiches I can tell you.

    It’s all unbelievable balderdash. There are serious risks to life in this world which wise persons take account of: and there are imperceptible risks which might kill the odd unlucky person. These are of little or no account to thee and me.

    Which does not stop do gooders and a sensation seeking press going on about them. Ignore.

    Kindest Regards

  18. Gary Mount says:

    Jeff L says:
    January 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm
    … Canadian wines have come a long ways!
    ——-
    You can thank NAFTA for that.

  19. Al Gored says:

    “Barzilai told AP lots of labs around the world are conducting extensive research into resveratrol, with encouraging results, and the new allegation will not make a material difference.”

    The science is settled. Move along. Nothing to see here.

  20. Pingo says:

    Lots of other studies agreed therefore the science was good. Right…

  21. Steve (Paris) says:

    Darn it, I need a new alibi for my Friday night tipple…

  22. Mike McMillan says:

    The internal investigation, … was triggered by an anonymous allegation of “research irregularities” in 2008.

    I suspect the tipster was the Coca Cola corp. So if I quit taking Communion, it won’t affect my health?

  23. MikeH says:

    But-but-but, his computer models proved the link between good health and red wine. So whats the problem? So what if he made up a few numbers and tweaked the model to coincide with his theory, nothing new, everyone does it.
    Hey, the more red wine I drink, the better I feel. That’s all the modeling I need.

    Cheers!

  24. Neal Asher says:

    Partially related, concerning (British) government limits on units of alcohol. This turned up on one site I read:

    HeartAttackSurvivor said…
    When I was being stented after my heart attack, my cardio surgeon told me “now, listen to me because I’m a heart specialist and I know these things. I want you to drink red wine every day”. He then went on at length (and I was of course a captive audience…) that he was closely associated with the working group that threw up the “21 units” figure. Apparently they had told the government that the range of units over which the mortality rate was lower than LD50 was 21 to 65 units (it’s a “J” shaped curve) and NOTWITHSTANDING other effects – cancer, liver disease, falling over into the path of a bus etc, people who drink 21 to 65 units a week live longer than people who drink nothing. The chief government health wonk was appalled and said “we can’t tell people to drink 65 units a week (about a bottle a day)!” So they fixed it at 21, any more than that and you’re a total sot with the life expetancy of Amy Winehouse. Also see http://www.wightwash.org.uk/drinks_units_myth.htm

  25. Another Ian says:

    Jeff L says:
    January 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm
    Bummer …. but I still did enjoy a nice Okanagan Syrah this evening after snowboarding in the Nelson BC area today. Canadian wines have come a long ways! Good job, eh !

    O/T but couldn’t be missed

    “Canajan eh?”

    From a speaker of “Strine”

  26. ‘research into resveratrol’
    I read that as Reserve a troll.

    I wonder what R.Gates thinks

  27. ken gareau says:

    Who paid for the study? Maybe wine related entities? If not then, who? And what were the parameters of the study. Were the levels of RV the same as other componds levels which were chosen in amounts far less than substantiated theraputic levels. Must be a slow week if they do not go any further than what the link provides.

  28. Ian E says:

    If he had been a pro-cAGW researcher, I doubt this would have come out, but, as the establishment is currently on a massive anti-alcohol, anti-smoking, anti-fun crusade, you can bet the investigators went in with all guns blazing!

  29. R.S.Brown says:

    With three reviewers for each Das journal item published there’s at least 33 peer
    reviewers and 11 journal editors or associate editors who didn’t detect a problem
    and failed to protect the medical research community and the public from sloppy
    scientific work.

    It’s nice to see the University of Connecticut has the integrity to persue the matter…
    unlike Penn State or the University of Virginia who rely on whitewash and legal
    obstructionism for their miscreants in another research field.

  30. KPO says:

    pat says:
    January 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm
    “12 Jan: UK Telegraph: South Africa weather forecasters threatened with jail if predictions wrong.”

    Hmmm, could be more reasonable than appears at first read; – a lot of resources are mobilized, put on stand-by; however a jail threat is pretty overboard. Then again if I close my convertible, put on a rain mac, but sweat my bollocks off in winter woolies while my car suffers sun blisters, can I sue?

  31. John Marshall says:

    So, a couple of questions.

    Were the research conclusions to justify a drinking problem of Prof, Das?

    Were the reported fabrication problems by persons who think drink to be evil? (There are plenty in the US)

    A doctor told me once that if any doctor told you to reduce your drinking change to a doctor who drinks more than you do as there are plenty of them.

    i will not let this report cloud my drinking the odd bottle of red at weekends.

  32. Scarface says:

    He should have ‘studied’ the effect of sparkling wines.
    With CO2 involved every fake study survives.

  33. Recently, the efficacy of a daily aspirin has been questioned; and the success of nicotine patches suffers from a high recidivism rate.
    Philosophically, one has to question whether Man can improve on the design of Nature for the human body. I’m inherently suspicious of a daily dose of anything, but I am told to take Warfarin because I have a pacemaker because I had atrial fibrillation that was controlled by daily sodium iodide that gave me hyperthyroidism that almost killed me … if you get the drift.
    BTW, my wife has been a vegetarian for over 60 years, so it is possible to modify conventional diets and intakes. However, when you are a chemist who can read and understand the number of toxins in ordinary food and their mechanisms (when known) one is driven towards a bread and water style of thinking.
    Why take wine when ethyl alcohol is so harmful? I gave it up 30 years ago when I read what it does to livers.

  34. Lawrie Ayres says:

    I wonder do the cabal of climate scientists who have managed to mislead the governments of the west worry that they will one day face the wrath of the people? Or do they feel so confident in their protection that they are above the norms of ordinary men?

    Their fall will be so satisfying.

  35. Anat T says:

    I have a question to the knowledgable readers of WUWT: Isn’t the red wine theory a stop-gap for the theory on the harms of colestrol, in that it purports to explain away the so-called French paradox? And isn’t the stop-gap necessary because of the multi-million (billion?) health food industry that depends on the colestrol theory? And does anyone notice any similarity to the theory of AGW and the commercial need to protect it?

  36. George Lawson says:

    ‘Barzilai told AP lots of labs around the world are conducting extensive research into resveratrol, with encouraging results, and the new allegation will not make a material difference.’

    Now fellars, there’s a lot of funding at stake here. We’ve got to kill this one off as soon as possible otherwise our grants are at risk. Let’s take a leaf out of the AGW crowd, they know how to hide the truth when it comes to scientific research. We can’t allow this Dr Das man to muddy the waters for us, so start getting those press releases out before this story gets too much coverage. The message is simply ‘the University of Connecticut is wrong even though they have found 145 areas of misconduct by Das. This is a pittance compared to the AGW crowd, and look what support they have across the world.’ Dr Das needs our full support, otherwise we’re all doomed.

  37. phlogiston says:

    The red-wine-is-good-for-you proposition is vulnerable to the classic confounding factor problem fundamental to epidemiology. Is there a valid control group?? For instance, group A drinks more wine than group B. Group A lives longer. So wine is good for you!! Umm – no (not necessarily). It could be that some members of group B dont drink wine because their doctors told them not to since they suffer from some horrible disease. Or alternatively, the genes associated with moral self-righteousness and abstinence are linked to something link a cancer susceptibility etc. Good epidemiology is damn difficult.

    (Probably the best epidemiology study of recent times was one aimed at finding out how harmful ionising radiation is. Two shipyards were compared, one servicing naval nuclear ships / submarines, the other dealing with non-nuclear ships. Both had similar work forces with similar socio-economic profile. The result was that radiation induced cancer was absent from all except the very highest dose group. This confirmed a threshold for radiation carcinogenesis. But this study was supressed vigorously for contradicting the ludicrous linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT). That’s why you are reading about it for the first time.)

    Epidemiology is the study of what makes people die. BY FAR the biggest factors are socio-economic status and social connectedness. The size of your car is also a large, independent factor. Other environmental factors like smoking, toxins, radiation etc which attract all the media interest are orders of magnitude smaller. Social interaction is primarily an exercise in killing people.

  38. Robert says:

    A “Diederik Stapel” all over again, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

    The whole thing with him started rolling when a he, Roos Vonk and Marcel Zeelenberg published an article that meat eaters are more selfish than vegetarians, wich was suspected to be based on faked data. The research result had not yet been published in a scientific journal, only a press bulletin was released.

    He has written a 130 articles and 24 bookchapters and it will take years to research wich ones are based upon faked data, not to mention that others used his data as well.

  39. Jim Barker says:

    And all it took was an anonymous allegation!

  40. dearieme says:

    Storm in wineglass.

  41. dearieme says:

    Perhaps my comment above is too cryptic. I’ll try again: “Who on earth believes any medical research related to items of diet, for heaven’s sake?”

  42. maz2 says:

    Experts say …

    …-

    “‘Scientists falsify data to get research published and whistleblowers are bullied into keeping quiet,’ claim their own colleagues”

    “More than one in ten scientists and doctors claim to have witnessed colleagues deliberately fabricating data in order to get their research published, a new poll has revealed.

    The survey of almost 2,800 experts in Britain also found six per cent knew of possible research misconduct at their own institution that has not been properly investigated.

    The poll for the hugely-respected British Medical Journal (BMJ) is being presented at a meeting aimed at tackling research misconduct in the UK.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2085814/Scientists-falsify-data-research-published-whistleblowers-bullied-keeping-quiet-claim-colleagues.html

  43. michael hart says:

    I don’t think those claims were ever taken too seriously. Certainly not by me. Alcohol itself has long been known to have a “cardiac pre-conditioning” protective effect, when taken in moderation.
    But it’s a useful reminder that what’s reported in the scientific literature is frequently incomplete, not new, wrong, or just plain BS. I doubt if climate science is different to any other branches of science in this respect.

    Peer review, like “95% statistical confidence” levels, is not a gold standard. It’s a minimum standard.

  44. Jeff Wiita says:

    It is just a matter of time until Penn State does a real investigation on Mann’s research. Without said investigation, Penn State will not be able to recover its reputation.

  45. RCase says:

    >> “Where’s the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) on Climate Research and the IPCC?”

    Good question, but the ORI is a part of the Dept of Health and Human Resources, so it appears that they’d only be interested in medical/epidemiological research and publications.

  46. Smokey says:

    maz2,

    And as we saw in the Harry-read_me file, the fabrication among climate Phil Jones’ researchers approaches 100%.

  47. JohnWho says:

    pat says:
    January 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm
    this is also summarised on the UK Met Office story page…OUCH!

    12 Jan: UK Telegraph: South Africa weather forecasters threatened with jail if predictions wrong
    By Dan Newling in Cape Town
    Independent forecasters have been told they could be imprisoned for up to ten years – or fined up to £800,000 – if they issue incorrect severe weather warnings without official permission.

    Is there a proceedure for obtaining official permission to issue an incorrect severe weather warning?

    Just wondering.

  48. phlogiston says:

    Smokey says:
    January 13, 2012 at 4:33 am

    I like your ad at the end of the above article:

    http://www.smokeybear.com/

    So you’re in the fire prevention business?

  49. phlogiston says:

    Smokey

    Now its gone. I grabbed the URL, maybe it will cycle back.

  50. littlepeaks says:

    60,000 pages? That’s almost 55 pages a day (over three years).

  51. polistra says:

    “Self-investigations” are rarely if ever aimed at finding the truth or protecting integrity. Their goal is either (1) provide a pretext for retaining an employee or project, or (2) provide a pretext for firing an employee or stopping a project.

    My guess would be that Das has offended or insulted the management, and this is the only way to break his tenure.

    It’s conceivable that he may have actually violated the norms of integrity, but that would be an uncorrelated and unrelated fact, which wouldn’t affect an “investigation” in either direction.

  52. Chad Woodburn says:

    Is there ANY field of study, research, and scholarship where intentional exaggeration, misrepresentation, and biased slanting of the information is not common?

  53. John Law says:

    I like drinking red wine and I am still alive. All the proof I need!

  54. Charles.U.Farley says:

    British medial journal poll reports more than 10% of scientists and doctors falsifiying their data in order to get it published.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2085814/Scientists-falsify-data-research-published-whistleblowers-bullied-keeping-quiet-claim-colleagues.html

  55. shortie of Greenbank says:

    phlogiston says:
    January 13, 2012 at 3:14 am

    The red-wine-is-good-for-you proposition is vulnerable to the classic confounding factor problem fundamental to epidemiology. Is there a valid control group?? For instance, group A drinks more wine than group B. Group A lives longer. So wine is good for you!! Umm – no (not necessarily). It could be that some members of group B dont drink wine because their doctors told them not to since they suffer from some horrible disease.

    Very close! I know of one theory that was disproven a few years ago. What happened in this instance was a report that continuing to drink into old age would extend your life as studies show that those who give up the booze actually lived shorter than those who did not. What the studies actually did was pick ‘healthy’ candidates from the drinking side and then follow those who gave up due to severe medical conditions. When you bend the conditions that much it is easy to end up with a result to the ‘sponsors’ liking.

    One of the best ways to track actual results is information from hospitals themselves, this was also done in studies on health and wellbeing of homosexual couples with far from sterling results for the supporters of that type of lifestyle. While heavily damaging to the information that the media likes to report they just ignore the information altogether as we know that the media likes to operate that way (i.e. Climategate I & II).

  56. Claude Harvey says:

    You see these fairly often in the medical field. Have you EVER seen an intensive investigation associated with AGW where such conduct is rampant? I suppose the current DOJ inquiry into the “drowning polar bears” report comes close to a real investigation. The reason for the difference, I believe, are the legal and regulatory ramifications of medical malpractice that are completely absent in AGW. AGW is all about public acclaim, research funding and little else, even though the collective economic and social ramifications are enormous.

    The only formal AGW investigations I can think of were the University of Virginia’s “investigation” into charges Dr. Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” temperature graph was a phony and a similar “investigation” into Climategate’s Dr. Phil Jones in the U.K. In both cases the exercise was a cursory whitewash that didn’t even involve a review of the material or how it had been used. So far as I can tell, the “investigative committee” didn’t even interview the scientists who’d made charges against the accused.

    CH

  57. Henry chance says:

    I feel like I have been hit in the gut. I was counting on global warming to introduce warm climate and I could plant vineyards in the Northwest Territories of Canada. I discover the warming won’t be enough and the demand for wine is also threatened. Seems like science has a political agenda creeping in.

  58. Alan Watt says:

    kbray in california says:
    January 12, 2012 at 10:37 pm
    Deepak Das should use ConnU on his resume instead of UConn.

    Very nice. Thank you.

  59. cosmic says:

    In vino veritas?

  60. Ian E says:

    “12 Jan: UK Telegraph: South Africa weather forecasters threatened with jail if predictions wrong.”

    Shouldn’t this apply, a fortiori, to the climate alarmists?!!

  61. Matthew W says:

    Layne Blanchard says:
    January 12, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    Something tells me I’ll still be drinking wine….
    ============================================
    Agreed !!
    As if I drink for any health benefit !!!

  62. RandomReal[] says:

    This is not the first time that the UConn Health Center has had to deal with questionable activities by a faculty member. Back in the mid-1980s, the Chair of the Clinical Microbiology Department was ousted due to misappropriating funds. He had obtained a grant to research pathogenic bacteria that infected shell fish in Long Island Sound — arguably a worthy research project. As one would expect, he needed a boat to get his samples as well as technicians to retrieve and analyze them. On paper, there did not appear to be anything untoward about his expenses. Then an expose was published on the front page of The Hartford Courant: his research “vessel” was a 40 ft sailboat and his research “technicians” were his children. In a matter of weeks, the powers that be forced him to resign. Schadenfreude is a good description of the prevailing mood of the basic research faculty. He was the chair of the Rank & Tenure Committee and had torpedoed the careers of several excellent researchers, mostly on the grounds that the basic science faculty “did not publish enough”, at least with respect to the number of publications. After the story broke, one faculty member decided to take a look at his publications. It turned out that he would take a few tables of data and publish them over and over again in different journals — a big no-no in the basic science community. While not scientific fraud per se, one has to wonder given his other actions.

    I never found out who leaked the story to the press, and most of my colleagues didn’t care: we were just glad that he was gone. This was about the same time that the Baltimore/Imanishi-Kari case was in the news, with John Dingell doggedly pursuing David Baltimore (Nobel prizes don’t protect you from the wrath of a congressman). Chins wagged, committees were formed up, and life in the research community went on.

    As with all bureaucracies, the scope and number of the watchdog committees have grown. Have they increased the integrity of scientific investigations? Probably not. It is ultimately up to members of the research community to police themselves. But, it gets complicated with jobs, careers, grants and reputations at stake: being a whistle blower brings its own hazards. At a minimum, publicly funded research needs to be as open as possible with free (or low cost) access to published manuscripts, methods and data. While the maintenance of scientific integrity is an important motivating factor for openness, the real benefit comes from the free flow of information to curious, inventive and motivated individuals who can move knowledge forward. Who knows what key scientific insight is lurking behind a $35 paywall just waiting for the right person to come along?

  63. G. Karst says:

    “is guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data”.

    Michael Mann and Jones could add an additional zero to that count… easily. Penn state and the UEA (CRU) should be proud. House cleaning is no longer enough. These infested houses need to be razed and the ground sterilized. GK

  64. AnonyMoose says:

    I think the bad research is not the real news. The real news is that extensive investigations of bad research do indeed take place sometimes.

  65. timg56 says:

    I’m keeping this article away from my wife and have also concluded that comments denegrating the positive health effects of red wine are proof someone is seriously deranged and should be ignored. The comment I’m most taking to heart (no pun intended) is the one about 65 units a day being good for you.

  66. _Jim says:

    Eternal Optimist says on January 13, 2012 at 1:24 am

    ‘research into resveratrol’
    I read that as Reserve a troll.

    I wonder what R.Gates thinks

    I dunno, we’ll have to check his/her blog – No, wait …

    .

  67. TedK says:

    “Neal Asher says:
    January 13, 2012 at 12:54 am”
    said

    I’m with Neal (though I do like a good port or sherry along with red wines).

    I’ve heard and read about the benefits of red wine (or grape juice if so inclined) for over twenty years. So catching a relatively recent gravy train rider who falsified data and got caught is not really surprising.

    I find that in this case, I have trouble blaming the reviewers and publishers. If one is good at fudging results and the fudged work resembles/mirrors other researchers results, fraud can be difficult to spot. reading the first pass review comments for some of those peer reviews might be illuminating though.

    60,000 pages says two things to me, Bureaucracy funded and written by a contractor team.

    Good one kbray!

  68. Oh good gawd it’s the IPCC of brown bagging. A 60,000 page report to prove that he’s not a major player?? They sacrifice of grove of trees in order to further marginalize a Second rate player? Sounds oddly familiar.

  69. wilber44 says:

    “…the new allegation will not make a material difference.” So, this is of no consequence, and was all a waste of time and money from the start, incredible.

  70. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Think we’ll ever see this?:

    Michael E. Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s interdepartmental Earth System Science Center, said: “We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers around the world.”

    I’m not holding my breath.

  71. DesertYote says:

    He didn’t lie. He just did a little data infilling.

  72. JDN says:

    @Anat T : Resveratrol is real. It’s a sirtuin 1 (Sirt1) inhibitor. Knowing that has pointed out the importance of histone deacetylases to longevity and disease progression. Resveratrol is protective in many animal models of injury. So, it’s real. The big question is whether it will do us humans any good. Because it’s so safe, clinical trials of the compound for various conditions abound. Here is a small group clinical trial for acne: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21348544. Here is a promising preliminary study for hepatic cancer: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680702. I’ve noticed that big-name drugs like this actually get their negative results published. There is so much interest in drugs like this that a negative result is just as important as a positive. These studies show that resveratrol can have a positive effect in humans. As always, resveratrol is good for stroke in rodents: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20655115.

    But your real question is whether the health food industry is pushing resveratrol. Here’s the thing: it doesn’t have to. If resveratrol as a neutraceutical weren’t hot, something else would be. Look at the history of natural food cure claims. Just as there is a certain population that are willing fools for AGW, there is a certain population that believes in natural foods for health. They can’t be completely wrong, but, they may not be completely right about anything either. I think that manipulating the sirtuin family of histone deacetylases will be productive in the future, once we know what these things do in disease or injury states in humans.

  73. D. J. Hawkins says:

    R.S.Brown says:
    January 13, 2012 at 1:58 am
    With three reviewers for each Das journal item published there’s at least 33 peer
    reviewers and 11 journal editors or associate editors who didn’t detect a problem
    and failed to protect the medical research community and the public from sloppy
    scientific work.

    It’s nice to see the University of Connecticut has the integrity to persue the matter…
    unlike Penn State or the University of Virginia who rely on whitewash and legal
    obstructionism for their miscreants in another research field.

    Your conclusion does not follow from the facts presented here. Recall that the purpose of peer review is primarily to confirm that the methodology is correct and that there are no egregious errors. It is not the purpose of peer review to determine if the investigators “got it right”. Otherwise, what’s the point of publishing for comment and general review? In addition, no reviewer could possibly be expected to detect faked data.

  74. Hexe Froschbein says:

    Aww… nevermind, I’ve now gone and bought the next delicious Luna Rosso wine kit and so I guess I have to just brew and drink it, despite the academic fraud =)

    On a very serious note: never ever trust students to input or even collect your data. And if you do, be sure you have some tools and methods to validate what they did, and you should also assume that some of those students know about those tricks too. It’s totally rife, when I was an UG, I had to have a few ‘serious’ chats with my peers who proudly boasted of ‘cheating the man’ about why this sort of thing is a bad idea(tm). Not all of those talks were a success :(

  75. Nick Shaw says:

    pat says:
    January 12, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    this is also summarised on the UK Met Office story page…OUCH!

    Does this mean Mann et al. should be considered criminals in South Africa and arrested upon arrival in that country?

  76. Resourceguy says:

    His big mistake was in not connecting his research findings to AGW climate change. That would have provided a good career insurance policy. I hear they have a lot of openings over at EPA for the right researchers….wink wink.

  77. DesertYote says:

    Resourceguy
    January 13, 2012 at 10:58 am

    His big mistake was in not connecting his research findings to AGW climate change. That would have provided a good career insurance policy. I hear they have a lot of openings over at EPA for the right researchers….wink wink.
    ###

    Maybe he did it and got caught deliberately, you know to increase his “street cred”, a resume enhancer.

  78. Crito says:

    Heck. If they would just pay off my bar tab, I might write them a favorable report . . . that is after a large research grant and some extensive further tests on my part and that of me mates on the subject of red wine. Thank you very much.

  79. Dr. Dave says:

    This is a rather unusual example of outright fraud. It is not common in medical research. Medical research is, however, rife with inaccurate conclusions. I was taught that beta-adrenergic receptor blockers are absolutely contraindicated in cases congestive heart failure. They had pretty convincing pharmacologic and physiologic reasoning to back it up, too. I new theory proved them wrong and now B-blockers are standards in the management of CHF. There are dozens of examples. The medical community simply shifts their paradigms according to the latest information…usually…but not always.

    I have always marveled at how climate science cannot seem to accept and adapt to new information. Then it occurred to me that in “climate science” the tenants are articles of faith. Some of this BS exists in medicine as well. The best example is the admonishment that we should avoid salt intake as it leads to hypertension. This was taught to me in college as absolute truth over 30 years ago. Only in the last few years have I come to question this “wisdom”. A complete explanation of this would take up many paragraphs but suffice it to say that the “war on salt” is based on very little, rather weak, very old and sparse data. But it’s now “belief” among generations of physicians.

  80. Bill says:

    This exposure of another case of scientific fraud to justify a predetermined position is another black mark on the scientific community. A major player in that community, Science magazine editor, Bruce Alberts, has just written an editorial in the 23 Dec 11 issue of Science magazine, decrying the fact that “science denial” has become fashionable and pointing to his efforts to counter that denial by having the science community “strongly support evidence-based methods for improving how students learn science both in college and at lower levels, focusing on empowering all students with the reasoning and problem solving skills of scientists.” He writes this while continuing to push the case for anthropogenic global warming/climate change in the magazine he edits. He appears to overlook the fact that it is those who are trying to apply evidence-based methods to the question of the effects of CO2 on climate that he is calling science deniers.

  81. Ryan Simpson says:

    He was just acting in the best interests of “the cause.”

  82. Russell C says:

    Lovely. Years ago, the famous US radio personality Paul Harvey was advertising for Welch’s Purple Grape Juice, saying the anti-oxidants in it (meaning resveratrol) would prevent my heart from attacking me. So I started buying the stuff, since alcohol doesn’t do me well.

    Where do I apply for the class-action lawsuit to get my money back?

  83. gringojay says:

    AnatT,
    The mediterranean diet/French paradox misses the mark trying to explain it being better for hearts due to modulating affect on cholesterol. Those meal’s benefit is from eating a greater % of polyamines for the same calories other diets provide.
    Don’t be put off by polyamine molecules called spermine, spermidine and putrescine – since all give our cells protective Beta-alanine, CoA & beneficial H2O2 signalling. Red wine has more of these than beer. The reservatrol sirtuins in red wine that JDN explains is a part of the whole.

  84. Jeff in Calgary says:

    Wow, the fact that they took action instead of trying to cover up has elevated UConn in my books. Maybe I will start to cheer for their sports teams.

  85. diogenes says:

    60,000 Pages! If you read 200 pages per day, that would take 300 days to read! Is this serious reporting?

  86. Rick says:

    “since alcohol doesn’t do me well”.
    That would include me. The amount of alcohol I am able to consume in a given year could be held in a small vessel indeed. The stuff gives me a blinding headache. I’m afraid I am cursed with what could be a short but sober life.

  87. wermet says:

    timg56 says: January 13, 2012 at 8:11 am

    … The comment I’m most taking to heart (no pun intended) is the one about 65 units a day being good for you.

    Sorry to have to correct that, but the article stated that 21 to 65 units per week was good for your heart, not per day. Although 3 to 9.2 drinks per day is still alot. :)

  88. My head hurts, is it from the spinning of information in my head or from the wine I drank last night?!

  89. HankH says:

    This is one of three high profile medical research studies that were found to be fraudulent in the past several months.

    The second case involved Robert H. Getzenberg, PhD, director of research of the James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and professor of urology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. He falsified data regarding early prostate cancer antigen-2 (EPCA-2), and claimed it was a “miracle” marker that overcame the problems with Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) tests. The paper, published in Urology (2007;69:714-720) was retracted in October of 2011.

    The third case involved Dr. Potti of Duke University who falsified data and his credentials (falsely claiming to be a Rhodes Scholar). His research exposed cancer patients to inappropriate treatments that should have never occurred. He been forced to retract his paper in September of 2011 which was published in the Annals of Applied Statistics (2009;3:1309-1334). He and the university are presently being sued by the patients and facing criminal investigation.

    Being a published medical researcher and cancer survivor, I am particularly angered by the abuses of government grant money further exasperated by the push by universities for staffers to publish crap for the university’s gain – all at the expense and harm to a trusting population. Personally, I’m delighted these fraudsters are being exposed and I hope they throw the book at them to serve as an example to the rest of the research community.

    On a more positive note, don’t stop drinking the wine (and green tea). Recent (hopefully valid) research has shown that the polyphenols are strong cancer antagonists. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609171802.htm

  90. Jimash says:

    “Barzilai told AP lots of labs around the world are conducting extensive research into resveratrol, with encouraging results, and the new allegation will not make a material difference.”

    That may be true, but there is something vaguely familiar about the tone .

  91. RoHa says:

    I’ve decided that WUWT isn’t such a good blog after all. Some information should be supressed.

  92. Pamela Gray says:

    The search for money is of highest import in the ivory tower. In many cases, University researchers and their lab assistants have a job based only on the dole of grantors.

  93. eyesonu says:

    The misrepresentations only effected wine consumers.

    CAGW is effecting the entire world population and economy.

    WUWT?

  94. Tim C says:

    Of more concern ought to be the same frauds played by the anti crowd.

    I don’t much like wine but many people do so why shouldn’t they do what they want to do?

  95. ferd berple says:

    UK research is plagued with misconduct, according to a survey of 2,700 scientists by the British Medical Journal. It found that 13 per cent had first-hand knowledge of UK-based researchers deliberately altering or fabricating data, while 6 per cent were aware of misconduct that had not been properly investigated. The BMJ released the results at a conference in London where experts pushed for stronger action to tackle what they said was a problem being ignored by many universities, hospitals and other scientific institutions.—Clive Cookson, Financial Times, 13 January 2012

  96. ferd berple says:

    The IPCC has been extensively infiltrated by scientists from organisations like Greenpeace and WWF. There is no transparency about how its lead authors and reviewers are selected and what their expertise is. It has been obstructive to outsiders seeking information on data sets and working methods. It is resistant to input from those who do not share the house view. It was specifically criticised by the IAC for not giving sufficient weight to alternative views. Its Summary for Policymakers is a serious misnomer. The scientists prepare a draft but this is redrafted in a conclave of representatives from the member Governments, mostly officials from environment departments fighting to get their Ministers’ views reflected. In short, it is a Summary by Policymakers not for Policymakers. I see no signs that serious reform of the IPCC is on the agenda for the fifth assessment.—Lord Turnbull, House of Lords, 12 January

  97. kbray in california says:

    # DEEPAK (दीपक): Variant spelling of Hindi Dipak, meaning “little lamp.”
    # DIPAK (दीपक): Short form of Hindi Dipaka, meaning “little lamp.”

    Little lamp…. translation…. not very bright.

  98. Steve C says:

    Always preferred vodka myself. With a recipe that reads:
    Alcohol 40%
    Water 60%
    it makes no silly, disprovable claims about being ‘good for’ anything. Except getting drunk, of coursh, which was the object of the exershise.

  99. Larry in Texas says:

    Well, I guess it is disappointing, but not consequential, that this guy falsified data. I love my red wine! Lol!

    By the way, my dear late Aunt Kathyrn used to drink one glass of red wine a night (well, maybe more than one glass a night every so often. . .). For her health and relaxation, she said.

    Unfortunately, she also smoked a lot. She died of cancer in 1974. So red wine couldn’t save her, alas.

  100. John Wright says:

    I take a little wine daily purely for medishinull purposhes, y’know…

  101. profootballwalk says:

    TomRude says:
    January 12, 2012 at 10:22 pm

    No need for research as we all know that wine in moderate quantities is good for health: in French clinics 40 years ago, a glass of wine was given to recovering patients…

    Yeah, and they also gave you a pack of smokes.

  102. BobDoyle says:

    Pat Frank: “From this, one can surmise that the UEA, UVA, and UPenn administrative hierarchy are ethically smarmy rather than merely venal.”

    Those who are going to make disparaging remarks about people or institutions, have an important duty, in fact, a moral obligation, to get the intended (and deserving) targets right. I assume in the line quoted above that you meant Penn State (of Michael Mann and Jerry Sandusky fame) and NOT UPenn, which is a completely different institution with no connection to Penn State whatsoever, except for being located in Pennsylvania. I hope that others here know the difference, but for those who may not, please realize that UPenn has so far maintained a quite respectable reputation and has no association with the sordid affairs and deeds being attributed to the other institutions listed in the quote above.

    I should also warn readers that (I am pretty sure) the Pat Frank I quote above and retiring Massachusetts Senator Barney Frank are NOT the same person even though, if I may be frank (and confuse things even more), one could confuse them because they have identical surnames and share at least one letter in their given names.

  103. Does this mean I can go back to drinking Everclear?

  104. Tim Clark says:

    Let me set the record straight IMHO. They are looking at the wrong molecule. It’s not the resveratrol that has theurapuetic benefits. It’s the flavonoids. Especially the ones with “sugar” functional groups at the 2 and 3 sites on the “C” ring ((as opposed to methylation, (more prevalent in citrus)). Such molecules as apigenin, quercitin, kaempherol, myricetin, etc. They act as both saponifying agents in the blood stream, Zwitterionic agents in cellular solution and as charged transport regulators positioned in the cellular plasmalemma membrane with the C ring swinging back and forth between the cell interior and the free space (as determined by electron microscopy).

    In addition to red wine (concentrates the goodies) or juice, it can be found in:

    “Foods rich in quercetin include black and green tea (Camellia sinensis; 2000–2500 mg/kg), capers (1800 mg/kg),[5] lovage (1700 mg/kg), apples (440 mg/kg), onion, especially red onion (191 mg/kg) (higher concentrations of quercetin occur in the outermost rings[6]), red grapes, citrus fruit, tomato, broccoli and other leafy green vegetables, and a number of berries, including raspberry, bog whortleberry (158 mg/kg, fresh weight), lingonberry (cultivated 74 mg/kg, wild 146 mg/kg), cranberry (cultivated 83 mg/kg, wild 121 mg/kg), chokeberry (89 mg/kg), sweet rowan (85 mg/kg), rowanberry (63 mg/kg), sea buckthorn berry (62 mg/kg), crowberry (cultivated 53 mg/kg, wild 56 mg/kg),[7] and the fruit of the prickly pear cactus. A recent study found that organically grown tomatoes had 79% more quercetin than “conventionally grown”.[8]”

    Blackberry has verrry high concentrations!

    Apigenin has the greatest “activity” on DNA replication in vitro. I had to fractionate and purify apigenin from the ground-up leaves of a black willow tree (also the source of aspirin) in a Methanolic-Acetic Acid HPLC distillation to get sufficient quantities for unpublished experimentation (not oil funded ;<D).

    And of course, I drink red wine daily.

  105. YourRedWine says:

    That sounds crazy. But red is still one of the most enjoyable drink anytime!

  106. mel says:

    was this the only man… was this the only team…. this one study does not negate all other studies… and please, do you like wine? drink it… if you don’t like wine… ummm… don’t drink it. i don’t need a study on it anyway.

  107. Lady Life Grows says:

    Samurai asks:
    January 12, 2012 at 11:13 pm
    Seriously, what exactly will it take to finally put an end the CAGW theory?

    My answer is it will take a better understanding of Human Physiology as it relates to carbon dioxide. One learned in elementary school that people and animals breathe in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide, while plants do the reverse. One might learn in high school that the pH of the blood must be maintained within very limits, and the body does this by means of carbonic acid, which is what carbon dioxide becomes when it dissolves in aqueous media (such as tissues or blood). One seldom learns anything else.

    Thus, the unstated assumption will be that carbon dioxide is a waste product and therefore harmful. The sooner one gets rid of it the better. And that is NOT true. Rather it must be maintained within narrow limits. If there is too little carbon dioxide in the air, the result will be a shortening of life expectancy.

    Far too little has been published in this area. The navy did some research I’d love to find (for submarines), and there must be considerably more data prior to everything being put onto the internet.

    In nutritional research, we find out a lot of what compounds are vital or useful to health by studying growth rates of young animals. I found three studies on carbon dioxide levels and growth, all in embryonic chickens. They showed that nest conditions allowing a buildup of carbon dioxide as the embryo respired resulted in slightly faster embryonic growth. This would have a positive survival effect in wild birds, and is one reason why wild birds eagerly seek human-built nest boxes if they can find them (weather and predator protection are even bigger reasons).

    We are learning a lot about ecology, and there is a growing interest in protecting and expanding wild habitat and animal and plant diversity. Nest boxes will turn out to be a major tool we can use (also planting useful cover).

Comments are closed.