UK Whistleblower reveals research fraud:Positive Results are Better for Career

[leela]

http://www.spiegel.de/international...blower-doctor-peter-wilmshurst-a-1052159.html

"....often the scientists don't even have to be offered bribes or threatened to conceal data. Some do it without any industry pressure. It is much better for a researcher's career to publish positive results. And that is what it's about: to climb up the ladder a bit more."

"You have made the principal investigator sign a confidentiality agreement beforehand, so that you have control over the data. And you may put into the contract arrangements for a bonus in case of a positive result. (grins) This may help the researcher interpret the data in a more favorable way for you."

 

[barbc56]

And you may put into the contract arrangements for a bonus in case of a positive result

I agree that positive results, unfortunately, are often tied with promotions, etc.

However, I doubt that a bonus would be put in a contract as that is fraud and a contract would would be written proof. Any contract would have to be run by an ethics committee or possibly lawyers in the case of pharmaceutical companies. While there have been dodgy studies that end up being approved, a contract like that would be grounds for litigation, at least in the states, where it sometimes seems that suing is a hobby.

I have no idea if there are deals made without written evidence. One solution would be replication of a study. However, replication is not always done.

I'm sure fraud exists, but I would question whether it happens so blatantly, to the extent, or in this form as reported by this guy. It seems like a sensational type of article. The way he states things, it seems more like a conspiracy theory. It would involve so many people, I would think that it would be hard to get away with it.

Edit. I dug a bit deeper and he's talking about one company he worked for. So in this case, it was be fraud. I thought he was talking about this happening frequently by big pharma. My misreading.

Here is a good discussion fron Ben Goldacre. The company went out of business.

http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/nmt-are-suing-dr-wilmshurst-so-how-trustworthy-are-they/

 

[SilverbladeTE]

See? cover up and conspiracy are de regeur, it's the way big business an government nearly ALWAYS work, and to hell with the victims like us.

 

[Snowdrop]

See? cover up and conspiracy are de regeur, it's the way big business an government nearly ALWAYS work, and to hell with the victims like us.

And because they are imbedded in the culture they really are blind to why it's such a big problem--it's just how things are done--until they're not of course.

 

[PennyIA]

It really doesn't surprise me a bit. Once upon a time research was research and no one was getting rich off of it and it just was done for educational purposes and a higher meaning of trying to find cures.

Once money enters into it, there's a lot to be said to find 'good results'... it looks good to bosses and peers, it helps make money (for right or wrong) for drug companies, for research companies, and the more success you have the more opportunities you get for doing more. Big business and pharma companies don't like continuing to fund people who get negative results repeatedly.