| More on the Potti scandal | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 11 2010, 08:56 AM (8,319 Views) | |
| Payback | Sep 3 2010, 05:14 PM Post #91 |
|
Crazy Boy sounds mighty like Brodhead's Secretary in 2007. Same poster? Let me get this straight: There is no longer a Duke Board of Trustees to interest itself in a scandal that will dwarf the Mangum Hoax? Who fired all the members of the Board of Trustees? |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 3 2010, 05:39 PM Post #92 |
|
Duke BOT? They didn't act when they had their Senior Administration & Duke PD involved in a frame of their Lacrosse Team, so what's 700 more cancer patients? |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Sep 8 2010, 05:12 PM Post #93 |
|
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100907/full/news.2010.450.html This is from Nature News, 7 September 2010 Published online 7 September 2010 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2010.450 News Troubled geneticist rebuffed by US patent office Rejection adds to woes of Anil Potti, who is under scrutiny for possible misconduct. Eugenie Samuel Reich Anil Potti is under investigation for false claims on his CV and doubts over the data in his papers. A US patent application based on research by cancer geneticist Anil Potti has been rejected in the past week, a Nature review has found. Another patent based on his group's work, filed by his co-authors, was rejected in 2009. Potti, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, is currently under internal investigation for possible misconduct after an inquiry into claims that he padded his CV found unspecified "issues of substantial concern". An external review of his published science is also planned. Potti was part of a group that found correlations between the expression of certain genes in cancer cell lines and the cells' sensitivity to a variety of cancer drugs. The result, published in Nature Medicine in 2006, led Duke to launch three clinical trials in which the group's technique was used to select treatments for cancer patients. But the university suspended the trials after The Cancer Letter published allegations on 16 July that Potti had inflated his credentials falsely. The science behind the trials had also been challenged by Kevin Coombes and Keith Baggerly, biostatisticians at the University of Texas in Houston, who in 2009 reported that they had been unable to replicate some of Potti and his colleagues' claims. Information withheld A patent application that included data from the Nature Medicine paper, published with the application number US20070172844, was rejected in 2009. It does not list Potti as a co-inventor, but does name his co-authors Johnathan Lancaster, an oncologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa, and Joseph Nevins, a cancer geneticist at Duke. Patent examiner Carla Myers wrote in a final rejection that "Sufficient information has not been provided regarding the gene expression profiles". A 'non-final' rejection had informed them of this concern and given them a chance to address it, but they did not provide the requested data. A second patent application, published as US20090105167 and including Potti as co-inventor, was rejected partly because the co-inventors did not provide the DNA sequences, called probe sets, that they used on their microarray chips to detect gene activity, wrote Sean Aeder, the examiner. Several biostatisticians contacted by Nature said that they could not think of any reason for withholding such information, because the sequences from which probe sets are assembled have been made public by their manufacturer Affymetrix, based in Santa Clara, California. "It is very easy to get sequences for any probe sets on Affymetrix chips," says Vince Carey, a biostatistician at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. Mysterious genes Coombes and Baggerly also found that the genes and probe sets listed in the Nature Medicine paper and the patent applications included several that were not produced when they re-ran a computer analysis of the Duke group's data, using software that it had made public via the web. Coombes and Baggerly believe that these genes were added to the lists by hand. The extra genes include ERCC1 and ERCC4, which are involved in DNA repair. Baggerly and Coombes say the group's papers suggest these are biologically plausible genes to be involved in sensitivity to cancer treatments. "We find their frequent recurrence disturbing," says Baggerly. Potti, Nevins and Lancaster did not respond to requests for comment. As of Friday last week, US Patent and Trademark Office files showed that two further applications that have Potti as a co-inventor and Duke as the assignee institution are still pending. Doug Stokke, a spokesman for Duke, would not comment on the scope of the university's investigation, including whether it would look into the patents. But, he says, "Duke is now concluding its divestment of all institutional financial interest in this technology." Edited by Payback, Sep 8 2010, 05:18 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Oct 29 2010, 11:57 AM Post #94 |
|
It appears as if the proverbial s**t has hit the fan-- Anil Potti's superior has asked for a retraction of their major paper, indicating that Dr. Nevins does not believe the results. This is indeed a major medical scandal. FactChecker, who has been dogged in his pursuit of this case, deserves a major hat-tip, even though the N&O article today does not mention him as a source. Joseph Nevins, a professor and director of Duke's Center for Applied Genomics and Technology, sent a letter to the editors of the Journal of Clinical Oncology, a leading publisher of scientific findings in cancer research, calling for a full retraction of work he and Potti submitted in 2007. Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/10/29/768881/duke-scientist-requests-retraction.html#ixzz13lfRGIlA To see some of FactChecker's work on the case, see his archive at: http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html Edited by sceptical, Oct 29 2010, 12:04 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Oct 29 2010, 12:03 PM Post #95 |
|
I like to think we here at Liestoppers taught Fact Checker a lot of how to do investigative reporting... |
![]() |
|
| jarms | Oct 29 2010, 12:59 PM Post #96 |
|
As Nixon (should have) taught everyone in my generation: "it's not the crime its the cover-up." Nevins, DUMC and the folks in the Allen Building had everything they needed to conclude Potti was a fraud a couple of years ago but attempted to whitewash the record with faux panels that asked only the questions that would produce the answers that would allow Duke to continue to draw down lucrative grants. This is suborning of academic fraud and, for Duke institutionally, is far more serious than violation of FERPA, obstruction of justice or even conspiracy to incarcerate innocent students. Frankly, many of their "peers" would have handled the Mangum/Nifong the same way that Duke did and therefore supported the Duke administration in its attempt to "move on." However, none of their former academic allies will come to their aid this time. If this situation is as it appears to be, the Board of Trustees has no choice but to take action against the perpetrators of the cover-up. |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Oct 29 2010, 01:30 PM Post #97 |
|
Oh, jarms, there has to be an "intermediate explanation" for all this nonsense. After all, Brodhead said so. Maybe it's time for Brodhead to announce that he is convening a national panel in order to discuss what to do in such intermediate cases since no one at Duke seems to be able to act from principle. Edited by Payback, Oct 29 2010, 01:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Locomotive Breath | Oct 29 2010, 03:31 PM Post #98 |
|
People in a fake cancer trial are a whole lot more sympathetic characters than an "out of control" lacrosse team. Maybe Brodhead is about to get Potti trained. |
![]() |
|
| 2close2durham | Oct 29 2010, 04:55 PM Post #99 |
|
To: Duke Medicine Employees From: Victor J. Dzau, M.D. Chancellor for Health Affairs and CEO, DUHS RE: Media reports/retraction of research paper by Potti, et al _______________________________________________________________________________ I wanted to send a brief note to let you know that you may see some media reports -- most notably in tomorrow's News & Observer -- related to a request by Dr. Joe Nevins to retract an important scientific paper authored together with Anil Potti, MD in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. The request for retraction of this paper is the latest in a series of regrettable events that have occurred over the past year related to the science that was the source of the requested retraction. It's important for you to know that the well-being of our patients, especially patients who volunteer to participate in clinical trials, is our highest priority. In this situation, we are confident that we acted deliberately and appropriately as an institution to both fully protect research participants and fairly evaluate the science and actions of the involved faculty scientists. While a regrettable situation, I also recognize and appreciate the tenacity and scrutiny of the scientists who raised the questions about this data and the study that is being retracted. A scientific misconduct investigation regarding Dr. Potti began several weeks ago, he continues to be on administrative leave, and I'm pleased that the Institute of Medicine has initiated a major national review of this situation and this field of research. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Oct 29 2010, 04:57 PM Post #100 |
|
Maybe a more "investigative" Congress with subpoena power could be encouraged to start looking into some of these University grants? You bet your sweet bippy these Universities have been getting by with padding the grants. Fact Checker Rules! |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Oct 29 2010, 05:16 PM Post #101 |
|
(If) Duke is found responsible for the fraudulent publications of the Potti, Nevins research it will be very difficult for Duke to receive any federal funding without some major and costly oversite. Rumors I hear suggest Duke will be hurt quite severely by this. |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Oct 29 2010, 05:23 PM Post #102 |
|
....to retract an important scientific paper authored by..... This shows exactly what kind of crap Duke is made of. How can a paper that is being withdrawn from a prestigious scientific peered reviewed journal be either important or scientific. I will be at the Duke clinic next week for a checkup. I will ask. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Oct 29 2010, 05:51 PM Post #103 |
|
In this situation, we are confident that we acted deliberately and appropriately as an institution to both fully protect research participants and fairly evaluate the science and actions of the involved faculty scientists. This is total bull! Duke did not fully protect the research subjects and it also did not fairly evaluate the science! Dr. Dzau is deluding himself if he really believes this. |
![]() |
|
| Duke parent 2004 | Oct 29 2010, 06:42 PM Post #104 |
|
From Dr. Dzau’s note to Duke Medicine employees: “While a regrettable situation, I also recognize and appreciate the [blah, blah, blah] . . . “ Yes, Dr. Dzau, your sentence above appropriately captures the carelessness and sloppiness that Duke has flaunted in Pottigate. You have written, of course, that YOU are “a regrettable situation.” Could this be a most ingenious confession on Dr. Dzau’s part? Nah . . . |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Oct 29 2010, 06:49 PM Post #105 |
|
If alumni dont get upset over this fiasco, then brodhead will never be responsible for anything Duke and will be there for a lifetime. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






9:14 AM Jul 11