Ecolog:
I'm happy to hear that Lawrence doesn't stick to journalism. While I
appreciate his impromptu lesson (I can always improve my journalistic
skills), I respectfully submit the following:
1. Ipso facto, the CHE article did, at the very least, IMPLY that the
allegations were true, by virtue of the fact that so many interpreted it
that way ("falsifying results in clinical research, why so common?"), and
the piece lacked the usual qualifiers.
2. I have no quarrel with the fact that the lawsuit was reported, only with
the fact that facts were missing, leaving the reader to presume
(increasingly ill-justified in this blogged-up avalanche of rumor and
innuendo that passes for "news" these days) that falsification of data
"probably" occurred in this case. At the very least, the lust for scooping
gratification should be held off until some verification can be done and
cited. Clearly, news judgment suffered. Not that the possibility or
probability that some fakery has occurred, but that since "the ripple
effects could prove devastating to researchers' ability to fund research,"
people should not go off half-cocked.
3. Good journalism eschews straw-man fallacies, above all--above all.
Nowhere did I say or imply that I did not want to pay for the paper. CHE,
for example, is at liberty to charge as much (to libraries and to
individuals) as it wishes, and can thus confine its readership to a narrow
elite or a broad population--if that is its goal (which it apparently is
not). I do want to pay for at least one good paper; I will go to the library
or the Internet for the rest. Or, as in this case, I will merely attempt to
respond to a post on a listserv. Nowhere did I express an opinion regarding
the guilt or innocence of the charged parties; on the contrary, I urged that
judgment be reserved.
4. Tradition is killing "traditional" newspapers, and it's kinda sad. That's
my opinion, not necessarily a "fact."
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Lawrence" <[email protected]>
To: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news"
<[email protected]>; "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science Ethics Journalism Falsification of results
Re: [ECOLOG-L] falsifying results in clinical research, why so common?
Wayne, stick to ecology :)
I am also a journalist -- I've been one off-and-on for 30 years. The
Chronicle of Higher Education article is perfectly ethical journalism,
although it could be written and edited better (even as a feature, it
needs some work). Neither the writer, nor the Chronicle itself, are
saying the allegations are true. The article clearly cites the source
of the allegation (Onconome) and where the allegation is made (lawsuits
filed by Onconome).
Now, if I was editing, I'd want to know in what state the suit against
Johns Hopkins was filed (presumably Maryland, but not clearly stated, as
far as I can see), but I do know the suit against Pitt was filed in
federal court in Pittsburgh. It appears that Onconome originally
included Pitt in the Maryland suit, but the Maryland court dismissed the
claims against Pitt for reasons of lack of jurisdiction.
The fact that the lawsuits have been filed is more than enough reason to
report on the matter. Clearly your news judgment has failed you -- this
is an matter that may shake the foundation of university-corporate
collaborations worldwide. The ripple effects could prove devastating to
researchers' ability to fund research.
Not all of this is explored in the piece in question, nor does it need
to be. The lede notes the significance of the story:
"Technology-transfer deals at universities can easily go sour, but
rarely do they end up with the corporate partner suing an inventor and
his institution for research fraud."
Unless you want to pay for the paper yourself, don't start mandating
that news publications should cite articles as academic publications do.
(By the way, what would you have radio and TV outlets do?) There were
no quotes to attribute, other than the word "fraud," but that is what
the lawsuits allege -- fraud. Most reputable journalistic outlets
routinely attribute quotes, by the way.
As for the "truth" of the allegations, that will be decided in the
courts, not in publications like the Chronicle. Unless you happen to be
on a jury in one court or the other, your opinion ultimately won't count.
Later,
Dave
Wayne Tyson wrote:
Ecolog:
After several misdirections, I found the following link.
http://chronicle.com/article/Company-Says-Research-It/48319/
It would be most convenient if the original poster of articles or
excerpts would include a link rather than just cite the source's name.
I don't know how prevalent this sort of thing is, does anyone else? How
do we know that the alleged facts in the article are true? Blumenstyk
cites no sources. That is common among journalists, but in this day of
false accusations and fraudulent posts besmirching the reputations of
innocent people before they can correct the record or are even aware of
it, journalist should perhaps lead the way in providing links to sources
or at least citing chapter and verse.
Perhaps we, the news consumers, should all insist upon links, citations,
and properly attributed quotes before spreading the word? Or, for that
matter, before even reading material that lacks such information?
WT
"The suspension of judgment is the highest exercise in intellectual
discipline." --Raymond M. Gilmore
----- Original Message ----- From: "Judith S. Weis"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] falsifying results in clinical research, why so
common?
There's a lot more money to be made in this sort of biomedical and
clinical research, of course, than there is in ecology and evolution.
I recently read that the famous other "fake" - the midwife toad, may not
have been a fake after all, but don't remember the details at the moment.
Why, do we continue to see this ticker tape of falsified studies
coming out of the clinical sciences?
The last ecological/evolution study I recall like this was Piltdown Man!
If it is "just human nature" why do we see so few in ecology and
evolution?
I thought this might be a good talking point! :)
Looking forward to the discussion!
(oops left off the article! see below!)
Malcolm
From the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Company Says Research It Sponsored at Pitt and Hopkins Was Fraudulent
By Goldie Blumenstyk
Technology-transfer deals at universities can easily go sour, but
rarely do they end up with the corporate partner suing an inventor and
his institution for research fraud.
The University of Pittsburgh and the Johns Hopkins University now find
themselves in that unusual situation, as a company that says it spent
millions of dollars sponsoring research by a prominent scientist,
expecting to use his promising inventions as the basis for a new test
for prostate cancer, is now accusing the professor and the
institutions of falsifying his results.
The company, Onconome Inc., says the professor, Robert H. Getzenberg,
lied about his findings and progress from 2001 through 2008. Mr.
Getzenberg has been a professor of urology and director of research at
a urology institute at Johns Hopkins since 2005; previously he held
similar posts at Pitt. He was also a paid scientific adviser to
Onconome.
Onconome, of Redmond, Wash., was founded in 2001 to turn Mr.
Getzenberg's work into a cancer-detection test. In addition to
financing some of Mr. Getzenberg's research, the company had obtained
licenses from Pitt and Johns Hopkins for rights to commercialize his
research. It says it spent more than $13-million supporting the
research and on licensing fees.
A Company's Suspicions
As recently as 2007-when Johns Hopkins issued a news release about a
study Mr. Getzenberg published in the journal Urology that suggested
his work could produce a better test for prostate cancer than the
existing PSA test-there were no obvious signs of trouble.
At the time, however, a writer familiar with the biotechnology
industry wrote a commentary questioning the wisdom of John Hopkins's
decision to issue a news release about such preliminary work, noting
that the university's reputation might have given the study more
prominence than it would have otherwise received if only Onconome had
publicized it.
According to separate lawsuits filed by Onconome against Johns Hopkins
and against Pitt, the company soon after that began to suspect Mr.
Getzenberg's findings because they couldn't be replicated by other
scientists. Onconome, which says investors put money into the company
because they believed in Mr. Getzenberg's findings, is seeking
repayment of its money and other damages.
Mr. Getzenberg did not return telephone and e-mail messages seeking
comment. Officials at Pitt said they had not yet been served with the
lawsuit, which was filed just days ago in federal court in Pittsburgh,
and declined to comment.
Johns Hopkins also declined to comment. But it has filed a answer to
the lawsuit, which was filed in state court in July. In its answer,
the university cites a number of defenses, including one that seeks to
bar Onconome's claims because of its "fraud" on the university, on Mr.
Getzenberg, or both. It also says all research was conducted in
conformity with scientific standards.
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Associate Professor of Biology
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
Texas A&M University-Texarkana
Fall Teaching Schedule:
Vertebrate Biology - TR 10-11:40; General Ecology - MW 1-2:40pm;
Forensic Science - W 6-9:40pm
Office Hourse- TBA
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.82/2351 - Release Date:
09/07/09 06:40:00
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [email protected]
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.83/2353 - Release Date: 09/08/09
06:48:00
