Cancer Research Fraud: Mayo Clinic Finds Massive Fraud

[Drakkith]

From here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...massive-fraud-in-cancer-research.aspx?np=true

In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings. His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.

The fraudulent findings included fabricated data here:

This includes:

Oncogene February 2009, which found that HIC1, a protein thought to suppress tumor growth, is a "central molecule in a novel mechanism controlling cell growth and that the disruption of this HIC1-mediated pathway may lead to abnormal cell proliferation and, ultimately, cancer."

Molecular Endocrinology December 2009, which found "reintroducing HIC1 into resistant breast cancer cells restored their sensitivity to the estrogen antagonists, indicating the existence of a novel regulatory mechanism for growth control of breast cancer cells."

(Links to each one are in the article)

Just wondering if anyone knows how bad this really is. Was this particular research in heavy use or anything?

 

[Evo]

Doesn't sound too bad.

The papers were published in two specialty journals: Oncogene and Molecular Endocrinology. According to Google Scholar, the Oncogene paper had been cited 13 times in journal articles by other scientists, and the Molecular Endocrinology paper had been cited twice, small numbers that suggest the work had not been very influential.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-10/news/29872807_1_research-misconduct-research-integrity-papers

 

[Drakkith]

That's good to know Evo. Thanks!

 

[bobze]

While that is certainly interesting about the research fraud, I would be weary of other "health info" pushed on that website. Reading the whole article really shows the true colors of the author--He's unhappy with peer-review and the scientific processes. Why? Who knows, but my guess is crankdom--the rejection of his ideas by mainstream clinicians and scientists.

A little reading of the comments section and you get the general flavor of his target audience--Antivaxers, antichemoers, antimodern mediciners etc

In fact one commenter went so far as to claim Pasture a "liar" and the whole past 100 years of medical science is nothing but science fiction.

The good Dr. Mercola over steps his quick (rather dull) logic however in denouncing peer-review when he offers his "advice" for avoiding cancer by supporting his "steps" with "peer-reviewed" findings. Something about glass house Dr. Mercola, something about glass houses...

So we find it isn't peer-review the doctor has a bone to pick with, only peer-review which doesn't agree with his ideas and the ideas of his movement.

Is that snake-oil in your trousers?

Anytime you read articles at blogs like these, especially regarding important issues like health, it would help to be mindful of the agendas being pushed.

My 2 cents

 

[Borek]

I don't get it - how come someone did 10 years of research based on results published in 2009?

 

[Evo]

I don't get it - how come someone did 10 years of research based on results published in 2009?

That's what the crackpot said.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't get it - how come someone did 10 years of research based on results published in 2009?

Hrmm. Good question. I found the following at the following link from the article: http://gaia-health.com/articles501/000510-drug-study-corruption.shtml

Note: The title has been changed. It originally read "Cancer Research of 10 Years Useless: Fraudulent Studies, Says Mayo Clinic", giving the impression that the Mayo Clinic made the statement that ten years of studies had been lost. The Mayo Clinic acknowledged that 17 studies, going back to 2002, involving a single cancer topic were fraudulent. However, the Clinic did not state that that 10 years of research were lost, though it can readily be inferred by the nature of the studies, how frequently they were cited, and how they formed the basis of an entire line of research.

Apparently whoever wrote the original article I quoted didn't get their information straight? If not, I apologize for not looking closer at it.

 

[Monique]

That's the good thing about science: it corrects itself! In 2011 there have been 5 (partial) retractions in Science. Here's a recent news feature in Nature on it:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html

This week, some 27,000 freshly published research articles will pour into the Web of Science, Thomson Reuters' vast online database of scientific publications. Almost all of these papers will stay there forever, a fixed contribution to the research literature. But 200 or so will eventually be flagged with a note of alteration such as a correction. And a handful — maybe five or six — will one day receive science's ultimate post-publication punishment: retraction, the official declaration that a paper is so flawed that it must be withdrawn from the literature.

 

[Drakkith]

That's the good thing about science: it corrects itself! In 2011 there have been 5 (partial) retractions in Science. Here's a recent news feature in Nature on it:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html

Yep. That's a lot of articles...