I thought most research was peer-reviewed.

[no1_vern]

So how did this researcher get away with over 145 instances of falsifying/fabricating evidence for Resveratrol ?
Resveratrol Researcher Falsified 145 Studies // Pharmalot

A University of Connecticut researcher named Dipak Das, who studied those supposed links and directed the school’s cardiovascular research center, fabricated or falsified research data as many as 145 times.

The focus of his work was resveratrol, which sparked considerable interest among numerous scientists and drugmakers as a way to slow the aging process.

--SNIP--

An anonymous tip led the university to investigate three years ago, actually, according to a university statement. A 60,000-page report - a summary is available here - contains all 145 counts of fabricated and falsified data. Other members of his lab may have been involved and are being investigated, according to Reuters.

My wife and I both take Resveratrol because "research" says it is good for us. Now we need to re-evaluate just how beneficial Resveratrol is and IF it is worth the cost of buying the fresh foods that are have higher Resveratrol content.

It makes you wonder, how much research is simply unfounded claims by researchers like Das?

[Gomer]

So how did this researcher get away with over 145 instances of falsifying/fabricating evidence for Resveratrol ?
Resveratrol Researcher Falsified 145 Studies // Pharmalot

1. Most research is peer-reviewed.
2. There are different calibers of "peers"
3. He hasn't gotten away with it.

My wife and I both take Resveratrol because "research" says it is good for us. Now we need to re-evaluate just how beneficial Resveratrol is and IF it is worth the cost of buying the fresh foods that are have higher Resveratrol content.

It makes you wonder, how much research is simply unfounded claims by researchers like Das?

What is the primary source of the "research" you and your wife reviewed when evaluating the benefits of Rresveratrol? Was it specifically the work of Dipak Das?

The New York Times says that Dr. Das was, "generating research of low visibility and apparently low quality". As well as:

The charges, if verified, seem unlikely to affect the field of resveratrol research itself, because Dr. Das’s work was peripheral to its central principles, several of which are in contention. “Today I had to look up who he is. His papers are mostly in specialty journals,” said David Sinclair, a leading resveratrol expert at the Harvard Medical School.

[Steve R Jones]

For me, the jury will always be out when it comes to supplements.

Having spent almost 4 years on a cancer forum, I’ve seen way to many discussions on the subject of supplements.

On one hand – I’d guess that they can’t hurt… On the other hand – a good heart healthy diet and exercise is a proven good thing to do.

[Epidemic]

For me, the jury will always be out when it comes to supplements.

Having spent almost 4 years on a cancer forum, I’ve seen way to many discussions on the subject of supplements.

On one hand – I’d guess that they can’t hurt… On the other hand – a good heart healthy diet and exercise is a proven good thing to do.

Actually they can hurt. I have heard on shows like the doctors, or Dr. Deen Edel, frequently there is chatter about some suppliments like A and E can be overdone a bit.

Though they almost all say a multi vitamin may be a waste of money but all in all probably won't kill ya.

[Theophylact]

The significance of the case seems more to reflect on the general system of apportioning research money. Researchers complain that federal grants are increasingly hard to get, even for high-quality research, yet money seemed to have flowed freely to Dr. Das, who was generating research of low visibility and apparently low quality. The University of Connecticut said Wednesday that it was returning two new grants to Dr. Das, worth a total of $890,000, to the federal government.

The agency that granted the funds was the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Renate Myles, a spokeswoman, said in response that scientific misconduct “can go undetected for a length of time even under the most rigorous systems of research oversight and review.”

[Beemer]

About peer-review in general, I've read a lot of the in's and out's of peer-review dealing with such subjects as Global Warming, Creationist claims or Intelligent Design. The anti-‘this and that’ groups like to post in non-prestigious journals so they don't get noticed and the papers are either friend-reviewed or low-bar reviewed in journals that don't have top notch review staff nor qualified. Sternberg at the Smithsonian and Intelligent Design, and Dr. Roy Spencer who claimed the NASA sat data was saying accepted computer models were wrong. Both published in low key journals. These are only 2 of the examples that come to mind from recent events.

Peer-review is but one of the first steps. Once published the rest of science gets to take a peek at it but the rest of science likes to watch what is published in the more prestigious journals.

Now if Dr. Das was an I.D.iot, there would be screaming going on that another scientist was being discriminated against for his views by the I.D. crowd and Ben Stein.

No don't turn this into a creationist thread. These are just examples of how low-bar peer-review can be trouble.

It's good they caught this charlatan Das. Gives science a bad name.