BIOL398-05/S17:Class Journal Week 9

Lauren M. Kelly Journal Questions

Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?
- I was not aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video.
What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?
- I was shocked to hear that someone would put the lives of so many innocent people in danger for the sake of their "amazing discovery." If the data does not support the project, switching the data is the worst thing one could possibly do. It not only discredits the scientist responsible but also all of the people associated with that person.
What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?
- The data was shared between many different individuals, and thus was thoroughly critiqued. Data sharing enabled people to ask questions about the data and raise the concerns that needed to be raised. If the data was not shared, then it would be far more unlikely that anyone would find out about the fraud.
What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
- I would like to know why Dr. Potti thought that it would be okay to switch the data. I do not understand how he could do that and still claim that the patients and finding new ways to treat cancer were his primary interests. I also would like to know how he was able to find another job after what he did and if he has faced any more consequences as a result of the research misconduct investigation.

Lauren M. Kelly 18:34, 19 March 2017 (EDT)

I had read about this case previously in the news.
When I first read about the case I was pretty surprised that these doctors would fabricate data for something as important as cancer research and market a treatment that could potentially cause a patients death as a cure.
It played a very significant role. It allowed independent review to happen and it led to the two Duke researchers being exposed as frauds.
I want to know how much Dr. Potis supervisor knew about the fraudulent data.

Conor Keith 01:44, 16 March 2017 (EDT)

No, prior to viewing this video I had not heard about this case of research fraud.
I was shocked to hear that Dr. Potti had the audacity to manipulate the data set of an experiment involving the well being of so many people, potentially putting all 112 patients in harms way, just to continue his research and experimentation.
Since Dr. Potti's data was published in various medical journals, allowing other researchers to access and analyze the data, Dr. Coombes and Dr. Baggerly, who both took interest in Dr. Potti's work, were abel to point out issues in the work after analyzing the results in order to verify the findings. In addition, other researchers at National Cancer Institute were able to voice their concerns, thus leading to the involvement of an outside review committee. While the committee did not identify the fabricated data, concern regarding Dr. Potti's character finally led to the discovery of the fraudulent data once Nevins, his mentor, reviewed the data and results.
While mistakes could have been hidden within the analysis of the data, it is more likely that issues lie within the data set itself. Therefore, why did the outside review committee only focus on checking Dr. Potti's work by reanalyzing the data set rather than focusing on replicating the data in order to verify the results?

I certify that this individual journal entry was completed by me and not copied from another source.
Nika Vafadari 16:22, 19 March 2017 (EDT):

No, before viewing this video I was not aware of this case of research fraud.
My initial reaction was anger and frustration that someone would be willing to put lives at risk just for the sake of personal and professional gain. Dr. Potti's work with changing the data goes against the basic principles underlying the scientific method, and his failure to adhere to those basic principles led to lives lost.
Data sharing was what lead to the uncovering of the fraud. The two bioinformatics researchers were able to start questioning the validity of the data, which lead to the data gradually unraveling before it was finally revealed as being fraudulent. If data sharing hadn't been done, the fraud would have gone unnoticed and more people would have had their lives put at risk.
I want to know why the other cancer organization still hired Dr. Potti after committing a particularly egregious act of data fraud. I also want to know what compelled him to lie about his credentials and then his data in the first place, because in a field like research which is built upon transparency, it doesn't seem like he valued transparency or the scientific process at all.

Margaret J. Oneil 13:28, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?
- I was not aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video.
What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?
- I was incredibly surprised and angered that someone could get away with this degree of data manipulation. It is incredibly apparent that Dr. Potti and Duke were more worried about their image rather than the health and safety of their patients.
What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?
- Data sharing played a major role in uncovering this fraud. If it wasnt for the two doctors from the MD Anderson Cancer Center checking over Dr. Potti's data, it may have been much longer until someone figured out that Dr. Potti had tampered with his data.
What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
- I would like to know what resulted from the lawsuits filed against Dr. Potti, why Dr. Potti's Rhodes scholar was never verified, and why the outside review committee would analyze the data set prepared by Dr. Potti and not analyze the raw data that would of showed the manipulation.