January 12th, 2012, 10:32 PM #1
I thought most research was peer-reviewed.
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.
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.
It makes you wonder, how much research is simply unfounded claims by researchers like Das?They say technology slows down for no one. I know it outruns my wallet. I figure its because my wallet isn't light enough yet.
TechIMO Folding@home Team #111 - Crunching for the cure!
dulce bellum inexpertis
January 13th, 2012, 12:28 AM #2
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?
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.
January 13th, 2012, 04:34 AM #3
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.Imagine a world where dogs took bad owners to the pound...
January 13th, 2012, 09:34 AM #4
- Join Date
- Mar 2002
- almost Virginia
- Blog Entries
Though they almost all say a multi vitamin may be a waste of money but all in all probably won't kill ya.
January 13th, 2012, 12:06 PM #5
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.
- Join Date
- Oct 2001
- inside the Beltway
- Blog Entries
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.”In judging a two-person singing contest, never award the prize to the second soprano having heard only the first.
-- Francis Bator
January 13th, 2012, 01:30 PM #6
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.
Last edited by Beemer; January 13th, 2012 at 01:32 PM.When those who believe in any of the available gods understand why they deny all other gods, they should come to understand why atheists lack a belief in theirs.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By no1_vern in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 169Last Post: January 26th, 2009, 10:51 PM
By sdigital in forum Networking and InternetReplies: 2Last Post: November 27th, 2005, 09:01 AM
By ClubMed in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 5Last Post: October 6th, 2003, 12:41 AM
By jsteitz in forum Networking and InternetReplies: 11Last Post: January 7th, 2003, 12:11 PM