Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
More on the Potti scandal
Topic Started: Aug 11 2010, 08:56 AM (8,321 Views)
Payback
Member Avatar

chatham
Aug 23 2010, 09:24 PM
Think about it. Starting a company that could tissue type specific cancers for directed treatment could be worth billions. Duke of course wants to be at the forefront. So brodhead defends bad and questionable science from someone who lied on his CV?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723075

Crizotinib in ALK-NSCLC; Response Rate "Unprecedented"
It's odd to talk this way about someone who is so shallow, but it's almost beginning to seem that the man is out of his depth.
Edited by Payback, Aug 23 2010, 11:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

the young Mr brodhead.....

http://whiffalumni.com/whiffs/person.php?personID=118

Posted Image
RICHARD BRODHEAD

Whiffs of 1968
Class: unknown '68
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

I tell you they were long-lost brothers!!

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Payback
Aug 23 2010, 11:58 PM
It's odd to talk this way about someone who is so shallow, but it's almost beginning to seem that the man is out of his depth.
Haha -- now that's a quote! That's excellent!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Payback
Aug 23 2010, 11:58 PM
chatham
Aug 23 2010, 09:24 PM
Think about it. Starting a company that could tissue type specific cancers for directed treatment could be worth billions. Duke of course wants to be at the forefront. So brodhead defends bad and questionable science from someone who lied on his CV?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/723075

Crizotinib in ALK-NSCLC; Response Rate "Unprecedented"
It's odd to talk this way about someone who is so shallow, but it's almost beginning to seem that the man is out of his depth.
Between Potti and Broadhead, Duke should learn a couple lessons on hiring.

Education = experience of knowledge
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

kbp
Aug 18 2010, 07:57 PM
Quasimodo
Aug 18 2010, 07:20 PM
Character is destiny.

Imagine how different these events might have played out--and how much a leader Brodhead might have been--
had he taken the moral high road regardless of the cost...



Now how will he be remembered?
I think Payback is our best candidate to answer that question!!
I looked back at the "Troth and Consequences" piece in the pinned file about how Brodhead soured in the 1970s and think it's pretty convincing. Brodhead's own unguarded interview was extraordinarily revealing, and I'll bet he regrets it, and regrets other interviews right up to the one this month. As I see it, the first thing to know about Brodhead (aside from his being sheltered in cotton balls all his life) is the souring during the long years when Yale kept him holding on, with silence from Feidelson, the senior Americanist, who knew how RHB was twisting in the wind and probably enjoyed watching him twist. Notice how Brodhead almost never says the word "Feidelson." The second thing (aside from the utter conventionality of his "work") is his being terrified by someone, some pre-publication reader, who pointed out that his THE SCHOOL OF HAWTHORNE dealt only with famous dead white men. If you read his preface you see that he is responding to some unidentified challenge, probably not angry criticism and maybe just a diffident challenge, when he was not used to being challenged though he had grown miserably used to being held away from the prize of tenure and then the prize of promotion. From the mid 1980s on Brodhead fled as fast as he could from being called Politically Incorrect. Sacrifice a lacrosse team in the name of Political Correctness? Sure, easy. The third thing is the "empowered wuss" factor--the revenge of the non-contact game player (was it Ping Pong?) against all tall stong handsome muscular athletic men (contact sport kind of men) who happen to be more intelligent than he is, not just Van de Velde and the Lacrosse players but Pressler too. His psychology is not really complicated, from what I see, and it would not be worth talking about if he did not exploit his amazingly expanded powers to damage others.
Edited by Payback, Aug 25 2010, 01:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Payback
Aug 25 2010, 12:10 PM
kbp
Aug 18 2010, 07:57 PM
Quasimodo
Aug 18 2010, 07:20 PM
Character is destiny.

Imagine how different these events might have played out--and how much a leader Brodhead might have been--
had he taken the moral high road regardless of the cost...



Now how will he be remembered?
I think Payback is our best candidate to answer that question!!
I looked back at the "Troth and Consequences" piece in the pinned file about how Brodhead soured in the 1970s and think it's pretty convincing. Brodhead's own unguarded interview was extraordinarily revealing, and I'll bet he regrets it, and regrets other interviews right up to the one this month. As I see it, the first thing to know about Brodhead (aside from his being sheltered in cotton balls all his life) is the souring during the long years when Yale kept him holding on, with silence from Feidelson, the senior Americanist, who knew how RHB was twisting in the wind and probably enjoyed watching him twist. Notice how Brodhead almost never says the word "Feidelson." The second thing (aside from the utter conventionality of his "work") is his being terrified by someone, some pre-publication reader, pointed out that his THE SCHOOL OF HAWTHORNE dealt only with famous dead white men. If you read his preface you see that he is responding to some unidentified challenge, probably not angry criticism and maybe just diffident challenge, when he was not used to being challenged though he had grown miserably used to being held away from the prize of tenure and then the prize of promotion. From the mid 1980s on Brodhead fled as fast as he could from being called Politically Incorrect. Sacrifice a lacrosse team in the name of Political Correctness? Sure, easy. His psychology is not really complicated, from what I see.
Additional observations surrounding brodhead are telling.

His immaturity in the face of decision making. He avoided the decision concerning Coach K staying at or leaving Duke. He marched like he was a student (to gain favor with his students) chanting for Coach K to stay. Brodhead has a serious avoidance characteristic.

His indecision about Duke direction. Being at the top of a major respected University in the same game as Yale scared brodhead to no end. Instead of only being a dean and a friend of the students, he was now responsible for more than his mind could imagine. He had no idea how to raise money or support scientific development or even student advancement.

His inability to tell right from wrong. The Duke LAX case brought to the forefront brodheads desire to please the liar and sacrifice the truth because of his fear of what he perceived the consequences were for a northerner moving to and living in the south. He shuttered at the thought of our friend barber sitting on brodhead until he yelled uncle. Brodhead yelled uncle.

And now the potti case. Brodhead must wonder why he ever chose to leave the security of his Yale blanket. Since he appears to not be able to raise outside funding for Duke he saw an opportunity at any cost to raise money from within. He supported this dream by hiring a person who has no respect for his own profession and will lie on his CV to prove it.

Brodhead is so desperate for success he will lower himself to the depths of deception to make it appear that his leadership is superior.

He quakes in fear that his legacy will be what he left in limbo at Yale. The Jovan case is the curse that brodhead tries to shed. A curse that will follow him until he admits his bias where he treats an individual as guilty until that person proves his innocence. I am seriously wondering if brodhead was maternally (or paternally) accused of having to prove his innocence regarding some early life incident.
Edited by chatham, Aug 25 2010, 01:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Chatham, I edited my post before seeing yours.

Chatham raises points that need to be elaborated. Anything I say here is just to open the questions further.

"IMMATURITY" --see his being kept on for years at Yale without tenure and without promotion, in a neutered state. That seals him in an immature state so that he is just not qualified to deal with a real-world crisis like the murder of a student and the ludicrous local police naming of a "suspect.

'INABILITY TO TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG"--see his absolutely consistent training as a New Critic to distrust factual evidence and to avoid all contact with it. Feidelson reviewed THE MELVILLE LOG in 1951 scathingly, jeering at the emphasis on data, facts. In 2002 Brodhead revealed his absolute ignorance of facts known since 1922--unless you think he knew the facts and was deliberately lying to blacken a reputation. You decide. You want to see why the President of Duke University pathetically whined that the "facts kept changing"? Go to his Yale training.

"LYING ON A CV." Think about it. Wikepedia identifies him as a "scholar," not merely and accurately as a critic. What constitutes lying on a CV? Do you have to say you have won an award you did not win? Are there "intermediate explanations," to use the immortal words of a famous critic? What if you pass yourself off to the New York TIMES as a Melville scholar who knows all about everything in THE MELVILLE LOG and LETTERS and CORRESPONDENCE but either knows very little or else lies about what he knows, assuming he won't get caught? Let's be honest here. How much of Brodhead's professional life involved passing himself off as someone who knew more than he did? I think of his disdainful comment in THE SCHOOL OF HAWTHORNE on the forgotten poet Thomas Bailey Aldrich--when Brodhead did not have a clue that he ought to have been treating the novelist Thomas Bailey Aldrich in that very book, since THE STILLWATER TRAGEDY, which he plainly had never heard of, starts with a long, vivid homage to Hawthorne. Brodhead did not know anything about the less famous white male writers or about the less famous writers, male or female, who took courses in "the school of Hawthorne." He wrote a book without knowing enough about how widely Hawthorne was imitated and the prestige of Yale and Oxford University Press will keep any real scholar from being able to publish a good book called THE SCHOOL OF HAWTHORNE. He did not even know about Harriet Beecher Stowe's use of Hawthorne in her New England novels. Morally and intellectually speaking, that's about like claiming to have a credential he did not have, it seems to me. One could write a little essay on Brodhead and Potti as parallel cases of passing themselves off as experts in their fields, one with obviously false credentials (once you look) and one with apparently valid credentials (until you look).

Chatham looks back to Brodhead's childhood. I look back just 3 years, to early June 2007, when the heroic Mike Gaynor broke the news of Brodhead's fraudulent claims to scholarly authority, before I followed with the revelations in NINETEENTH-CENTURY LITERATURE (June 2007, out in July), then in MELVILLE: THE MAKING OF THE POET (2008) and the volume of Melville's PUBLISHED POEMS (2009), the next to last of 15 volumes in THE WRITINGS OF HERMAN MELVILLE. To be labeled as a fraud (however politely) in such scholarly publications will insure that the future knows better than today's Wikipedia about Brodhead's claims to being a scholar. And I am not done with examining Brodhead in scholarly publications, not until MikeZPU says to stop.

Does Brodhead at least have the right to claim to be an honorable man, although certainly not a Mensch? I think the verdict is in.

Chatham, you open up a---well, a can of worms.
Edited by Payback, Aug 26 2010, 06:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Posted Image
the evil worm

can of worms
Posted Image
Edited by chatham, Aug 25 2010, 02:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical


http://news.duke.edu/2010/08/pottiresponse.html

Duke Updates Response to Potti Allegations

One investigation completed; two others continuing

Friday, August 27, 2010

Note to Editors:
Michael Schoenfeld, vice president for public affairs and government relations, released the following statement Friday about the university's response to allegations regarding Dr. Anil Potti.


Durham, NC -- When the Cancer Letter and other sources raised allegations of inaccuracies in Dr. Anil Potti's curriculum vitae and research, Duke University immediately took the following actions:

1. A complete review of the credentials and claims Dr. Potti made in his CV and biosketches, to be led by Provost Peter Lange.

2. A research misconduct inquiry to be conducted as specified by Duke policies and Federal law; and

3. Efforts to facilitate the initiation of an independent, external investigation of the science in question by one of the country's leading research bodies, to which Duke would supply any and all data and information, but would otherwise have no involvement.

The first part of the investigation - the review of credentials -- has now been completed. Issues of substantial concern were identified, and have resulted in corresponding sanctions. However, a final decision about Dr. Potti's future status as a Duke employee and faculty member will also be informed by the results of the research misconduct inquiry and the independent external evaluation of the science. Until such time, he will remain on administrative leave from his research, teaching and clinical responsibilities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

sceptical
Aug 27 2010, 09:40 PM
The first part of the investigation - the review of credentials -- has now been completed. Issues of substantial concern were identified, and have resulted in corresponding sanctions. However, a final decision about Dr. Potti's future status as a Duke employee and faculty member will also be informed by the results of the research misconduct inquiry and the independent external evaluation of the science. Until such time, he will remain on administrative leave from his research, teaching and clinical responsibilities.
The obvious question is what are the "corresponding sanctions?" A letter of reprimand? A warning? A suspension? A demotion?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical


7:08 PM
August 27, 2010

Fact Checker
✔Fact Checker here.

This is a very very weak response by the Brodhead Administration, which talks "transparency" out of one side of its mouth, and then refuses to detail what the investigation turned up out of the other.

Tell me Chancellor Dzau, Provost Lange: what did you mean when you promised "transparency" when you won't even tell us the conclusion of an investigation, much less who sat in judgment. You guys give me real confidence!

✔✔✔✔✔
Key point: The administration seems to be telling us that lying on your resume -- one version presented to Duke when he was hired, seven other versions sent to grant-makers like the federal government and American Cancer Society -- is not sufficient to get fired.

Even when you faked a Rhodes Scholarship, which incredibly the Chronicle story does not mention.

I reach the conclusion about not sufficient to get fired, since Duke says it must await outcome of other investigations before determining the penalty. We need more evidence to can this clown.

Mr. Brodhead, the word pusillanimous comes to mind.

Duke cleared up one fact: Potti does not enjoy tenure. Previously PR VP Schoenfeld had refused to confirm this.

And Duke added a new mystery: up until now we've been told there would be an "internal" investigation into Potti's credentials and an "external" investigation by an august body into his science. Two probes.

Now we are told two aspects of the investigation remain: the external investigation, plus a faculty misconduct investigation. Of course there is no explanation.

✔Loyal Readers, let us remember this is not only about Potti. Duke cleared him, his mentor Dr. Joseph Nevins and another cancer researcher William Barry Ph.D. of ALL charges last winter. Imagine what will happen if -- correction -- Imagine what will happen when the independent science probe challenges Duke's earlier review.

Duke's administration serves only itself by not listing its own handling of the mess as a key issue. Come on Fact Checker, that would be too honest.

From the Cancer Letter: "When questions about Potti’s science emerged in scientific literature and in alarms sounded by internal critics, the Duke administration formed a protective barrier around the man they considered their star, forming committees that operated in secret, and then incorrectly portraying the findings of one of these committees as validation of Potti’s science."

✔✔✔✔✔
Tonight's announcement shamefully does not mention the 107 to 109 cancer patients who are currently enrolled in Potti's human experiments. Most have breast cancer, some lung cancer. They gave up other therapies to join Potti's research -- trusting Duke's own endorsement of it. Has Duke even informed these people that they are being treated in a manner that no one outside this institution -- and many in it -- has any confidence in whatsoever?

Last point: I must wonder what role Mr Brodhead's new formulation of integrity played. Unreported by the Chronicle, our president told the Herald-Sun editorial board two weeks ago that we might find truth, we might find lies, and we might find "intermediate explanation" on Potti's resume. That's one hell of a message to send to the freshmen about our Honor Code, and I wonder if "intermediate explanation" is involved.

Duke played the oldest trick in the PR handbook, waiting until late Friday afternoon when everyone is in get-a-way mode, to make this announcement. But Mr. Schoenfeld, you did not fool Fact Checker!!

✔Thanks for reading FC.
Email Duke.Fact.Checker@gmail.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Duke played the oldest trick in the PR handbook, waiting until late Friday afternoon when everyone is in get-a-way mode, to make this announcement


Beat me to it.

I wondered why it was released late Friday...

And what were the "issues of substantial concern"?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

When public relations people want to bury a story, they release it late on a Friday afternoon. The release is too late for Friday papers, so it appears on Saturday, which is the least read newspaper of the week. By the Sunday edition, the information is old news.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeKell
Member Avatar
Still a Newbie
"3. Efforts to facilitate the initiation of an independent, external investigation of the science in question by one of the country's leading research bodies, to which Duke would supply any and all data and information, but would otherwise have no involvement."

Read this carefully. What this says is that NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. "efforts to facillitate the INITIATION...." are all rot words that mean "we have not done a damn thing yet, ha ha."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply