XML Feed for RxPG News   Add RxPG News Headlines to My Yahoo!   Javascript Syndication for RxPG News

Research Health World General
 
  Home
 
 Latest Research
 Cancer
 Psychiatry
 Genetics
 Surgery
 Aging
 Ophthalmology
 Gynaecology
 Neurosciences
 Pharmacology
 Cardiology
 Obstetrics
 Infectious Diseases
 Respiratory Medicine
 Pathology
 Endocrinology
 Immunology
 Nephrology
 Gastroenterology
 Biotechnology
 Radiology
 Dermatology
 Microbiology
 Haematology
 Dental
 ENT
 Environment
 Embryology
 Orthopedics
 Metabolism
 Anaethesia
 Paediatrics
 Public Health
 Urology
 Musculoskeletal
 Clinical Trials
 Physiology
 Biochemistry
 Cytology
 Traumatology
 Rheumatology
 
 Medical News
 Health
 Opinion
  Columnists
  Editorials
  Discussions
  Surveys
 Healthcare
 Professionals
 Launch
 Awards & Prizes
 
 Careers
 Medical
 Nursing
 Dental
 
 Special Topics
 Euthanasia
 Ethics
 Evolution
 Odd Medical News
 Feature
 
 World News
 Tsunami
 Epidemics
 Climate
 Business
Search

Last Updated: Nov 17th, 2006 - 22:35:04

Discussions Channel
subscribe to Discussions newsletter

Medical News : Opinion : Discussions

   DISCUSS   |   EMAIL   |   PRINT
BMJ highlights lack of international cooperation to investigate scientific fraud
Jul 29, 2005, 14:45, Reviewed by: Dr.

In 1992, the BMJ published a paper by Dr Singh on the protective effects of diet on the heart. But doubts were soon raised about this study and subsequent manuscripts submitted by the same author.

 
This week, the BMJ expresses concern about the validity of a paper it published in 1992 written by Dr Ram B Singh of Moradabad, India.

It also highlight the case of another author, R K Chandra, who had a study retracted by the journal Nutrition earlier this year. As with Singh, serious doubts now hang over the rest of his work.

The stories of Singh and Chandra have been told to highlight the problems associated with investigating allegations of research fraud and to challenge the international scientific community to take action where necessary.

In 1992, the BMJ published a paper by Dr Singh on the protective effects of diet on the heart. But doubts were soon raised about this study and subsequent manuscripts submitted by the same author.

In the absence of answers from the author, Richard Smith, then editor of the BMJ, tried to find an authority in India that would investigate and resolve the doubts over Singh’s work, but no institution would take on the task. A statistical analysis of one of Singh’s papers, also published in this week’s issue, concludes that data “were either fabricated or falsified.”

After several years of fruitless correspondence, the BMJ decided it had no option but to publish an account of the suspicions and the failed attempts to have them resolved.

Richard Smith, who left the BMJ in 2004, accepts that it has taken far too long to bring the case of Dr Singh to light, and admits that “the failure is in part mine.” However, he adds that “the bigger shame lies with the scientific community that lacks means to investigate these international scandals and has to leave it to an individual journal.”

He resolutely stands by the decision to publish the saga, and believes that the scientific community has an obligation to the public to do better.

But once the validity of one study is called into question, who should investigate the rest of the author’s work and, if necessary, mete out punishment, and correct the scientific record? Richard Smith believes that employers are best able to conduct this process but there needs to be an international body to take the lead. He also suggests that we should mark suspicious studies as “dubious” on international databases such as Pubmed.

Although the BMJ may have done more, it has still taken us over 10 years to try to resolve this issue, write BMJ editors, Fiona Godlee and Jane Smith. What more can journals do when their attempts to get someone to investigate fail?

Some argue that journals should keep “black lists” of suspected papers and authors. Others suggest that journals should ask authors to deposit a copy of their raw data in a secure archive so that these could be audited if questions arise.

Perhaps journals should be more ready to share their concerns about published papers, as the BMJ has done this week. This does not resolve the suspicions, but it alerts the scientific community, and it may in turn prompt a legitimate organisation to do the necessary investigations, they conclude.
 

- British Medical Journal
 

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7511/281

 
Subscribe to Discussions Newsletter
E-mail Address:

 

(Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7511/281

(Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7511/267

(Investigating the previous studies of a fraudulent author)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7511/288

(Editorial: Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7511/245


Related Discussions News

BMJ highlights lack of international cooperation to investigate scientific fraud
Death on the road to international development
Challenges over 5 decades in Digestive endoscopy
HIV testing should no longer be given special status
BMJ urges to ban Branding practices in rural India
Equitable Allocation of Antiretrovirals in Resource-Constrained Countries
Do our children need Santa Claus any more?


For any corrections of factual information, to contact the editors or to send any medical news or health news press releases, use feedback form

Top of Page

 

© Copyright 2004 onwards by RxPG Medical Solutions Private Limited
Contact Us