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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 🙁
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He was just acting in the best interests of “the cause.”
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?
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.
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.
60,000 Pages! If you read 200 pages per day, that would take 300 days to read! Is this serious reporting?
“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.
timg56 says: January 13, 2012 at 8:11 am
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. 🙂
My head hurts, is it from the spinning of information in my head or from the wine I drank last night?!
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
“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 .
I’ve decided that WUWT isn’t such a good blog after all. Some information should be supressed.
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.
The misrepresentations only effected wine consumers.
CAGW is effecting the entire world population and economy.
WUWT?
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?
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
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
# 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.
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.