BIOL388/S19:Class Journal Week 2

Ava Lekander Reflection to "Deception at Duke"

Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?

• No, I had never heard about this case of data manipulation prior to this video.

What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?

• I am disgusted with Dr. Poddi's deception of cancer patients and disappointed that Dr. Poddi is still a practicing doctor and that his license was not revoked. I can't believe he is still able to treat patients after the severely unethical data manipulation that was committed. I think that what makes this case of fraud even worse is that he was blatantly lying to cancer patients and their families about the prospects of the drug.

What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?

• If it weren't for the role of professionals outside of Duke looking into the dataset then the manipulation may never have been uncovered. Like the video said, Duke and everyone involved in the study was so hopeful about the possibilities behind the treatment that it was hard for them to believe the data was falsified.

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 more about the science and methods behind how the discovery was supposed to determine the best chemotherapy in relation to one's genomics. I am also curious about why sometime in the middle of the video it was said that after looking at the dataset it was clear that the chemotherapies being prescribed were actually some of the worst based on people's genes rather than the best. I am definitely interested to learn more about the science behind the study because I feel like the 60 minutes video was probably geared toward people without a scientific background but I am still curious about the specifics. I'd also like to know how Dr. Poddi was able to avoid having his medical license revoked.

Avalekander (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2019 (PST)

Desiree Gonzalez Class Journal Week 2

Reflection Questions from "Deception at Duke"

• Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?
  • Prior to viewing this fourteen minute video I was unaware of there being any research fraud, in particular this case with Dr. Potti and his cancer patient data.
• What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?
  • Initially, I was surprised to be hearing about this case. I was a bit disappointed to find out about this case of research fraud because I had always held Duke University in a high regard. It was a bit hard for me to believe that no one at Duke University claimed to be accomplice to Dr. Potti; the editing of all the data collected seems to be too much work for only one person to do. Also, I thought that it was really weird that no one at Duke University had properly analyzed the data. Duke University only analyzed the data and noticed the errors after larger companies like the National Cancer Institute were getting involved.
• What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?
  • The practice of data sharing through scientific journals helped to uncover this fraud by allowing the data to be easily accessible by other schools to review and repeat the experimental processes depicted by Dr. Potti. The repetition of the experiment by other schools, and the collection of a data set that did not match Dr. Potti's when comparing and reviewing the data, helped to identify that the results were manipulated in order to have a better result.
• What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)
  • Besides the information that I obtained from watching the portion of the 60 Minutes Video, I would like to learn about the exact processes that were used to review the data collected from Dr. Potti's cancer experiment. For example, how were other scientists and researchers so easily able to find errors in the collection of Dr. Potti's data? Did they all use a specific computer program or model to analyze all the data? How many times was the data reviewed before the inconsistencies lead the scientists to the conclusion that the data had been manipulated? Lastly, I would want to know how Dr. Potti is still working his own practice even after his scientific papers were retracted.

Desireegonzalez (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2019 (PST)

Alison S King Reflection

1. I was not aware of this case before watching the video.
2. My initial reaction to this case was shock and disgust because of how manipulative and misleading it was to fake evidence and give false hope to cancer patients. I could not believe that someone would promise a cure for cancer and then take it away. I was appalled.
3. Data sharing was essential to uncovering this case of fraud because it allowed other institutions to look at the data and try to recreate it. By having access to Dr. Potti's data, other groups could compare it to their own attempted reproductions and realize that something didn't add up. Data sharing was important for people to identify the discrepancies between his data and theirs. Subsequently it allowed them to come to the conclusion that these couldn't have been simple errors, but instead had to be fraud.
4. I think it would be interesting to get a look at the actual data set and analyze it ourselves. I also would want to know what Dr. Potti's motives were in fraudulently padding the data when it seemed pretty likely that he would get caught as people started to realize that his method didn't work.

Alison S King (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2019 (PST)

Fatimah Alghanem Reflection to "Deception at Duke"

• Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?
  • No I wasn't aware of this case of research.

• What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?
  • My initial reaction was questioning why I never heard about this before and what made them think that they found a cure for cancer and what did they think the cure was. I was also shocked that Dr. Potti got this far when some were questioning his method and that his opinion was basically put before patients health.

• What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?
  • Finding out the manipulation of data and not "errors" within the data that Dr. Potti was changing in order to prove his theory.

• 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 the actual harms this treatment had especially that Duke announced that every patient got the appropriate chemotherapy and care and that they were basically not harmed. However, I want to know the direct harms that this treatment had on patients.

Falghane (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2019 (PST)

Leanne Kuwahara Reflection to "Deception at Duke"

1. I have briefly heard of this case before; however, I did not know any of the specifics of the case prior to this interview.
2. I was shocked that a doctor who claims to care so immensely about patient care would blatantly falsify his data, and then advertise his treatment as this revolutionary and advanced form of care. One of the most interesting aspects of this case was that this type of care—personalized medicine—is a current form of cancer treatment being researched and advertised as the “next big thing.” I also found it interesting that Dr. Potti was not caught by Duke, Dr. Nevins, or the outside investigation. Perhaps this was due to personal bias and the listed parties not wanting to believe that such a renowned scientist would falsify his data. The most disturbing aspect was when the researcher team at MD Anderson Cancer Center stated that the patients in this trial were not getting the best chemotherapy, but perhaps the worst. It further brings into question why Dr. Potti manipulated the data the way he did.
3. Data sharing is what brought light to this case of data fraud. Without other researchers working to replicate Dr. Potti’s research, this account of fraud would never have been caught.
4. Additional information I would like to know is, a) how much money, Dr. Potti, Dr. Nevins, and Duke University were profiting from this and b) How Dr. Potti was allowed to continue practicing medicine after this scandal.

Leanne Kuwahara (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2019 (PST)

Angela Abarquez Reflection to "Deception at Duke"

1. I was not aware of this case before watching the video.
2. I'm shocked at how easy it was for him to manipulate his data without anyone knowing. I never realized how much of data is based on the honor of the researchers, and after thinking about it there isn't a foolproof way to ensure data isn't being skewed. There is so much trust within the science community as people rely on their colleagues to be honest even when their results don't turn out as they had hoped. The biggest turning point of the video for me was when the outside review committee failed to catch the error in data.
3. Data sharing is what ultimately shed light on Dr. Potti's fraud. Since the outside review committee hired by Duke failed to catch the manipulations, it was the individuals who took initiative to analyze the shared data that helped bring this major problem to attention.
4. I wish the video showed more of the reactions of the patients who were deceived by Dr. Potti. I would like to know details on how his data was able to pass the outside review committee's evaluation. I also am curious to see the path Dr. Potti's career took after he was exposed and how he got to practicing in South Carolina. I wonder if there are any other cases that raised red flags with their data.

Angela C Abarquez (talk 12:01, 30 January 2019 (PST))

Edward Talatala Reflection to "Deception at Duke"

1. I had no idea of this fraud before the video.
2. Absolutely shocked that someone, especially a doctor at a prestigious university, would fabricate research to deceive terminally ill patients who are desperate for a cure to cancer. These actions goes against the core of being a physician, to do no harm and to put the patient's health as top priority.
3. Data sharing allowed other people to check the data and determine the legitimacy of the results. This allowed Dr. Potti be held accountable for manipulating and skewing data.
4. Why would Dr. Potti do this ? For fame ? Money ? Just to be able to say he found the cure to cancer ? Even if you were able to continue this research, why would he want to if he knew that the results were not working ? How could he continue this line of treatment to patients knowing it would not work ?

EdwardRyanTalatala (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2019 (PST)

Austin Dias Class Journal Week 2

Were you aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video?

I was not at all aware of this case of research fraud before viewing this video.

What are your initial reactions to hearing about this case?

I am highly disappointed in the fact that this doctor submitted a paper, while knowingly deceiving others of his findings. The goal of medicine and biological applications of medicine is to give patients the best treatment possible based on the information available. It is completely worrisome that other doctors could have been referring to this publication for cancer treatment and believed the findings to be presented accurately. The deception that was used in this research has tainted the field of science and will now make many people skeptical of the true motives of many researchers and doctors around the country.

What role did data sharing play in uncovering this fraud?

Data sharing was incredibly important to uncovering this fraud. It allowed secondary parties to review the data that was presented and come across all of the read flags. This allowed the science community to get to the bottom of the issue and find the truth. Without data sharing, it may have taken much longer and more patients would have faced adverse effects until the research was deemed illegitimate.

What additional information would you like to know about this case? (We will be visiting it again in subsequent weeks in the course.)

I am wondering exactly what type of data was manipulated by Dr. Potti and whether it was in all instances or just in areas that would prove his hypothesis. I am also interested to know if findings from this research were only used to treat clinical patients at Duke University or if it was being used throughout the United States or rest of the world before it was found to be fraudulent.

Austindias (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2019 (PST)

Brianna N. Samuels Reflection

Questions

1. No, I wasn't aware of this type of fraud prior to watching this video.
2. I was so mad watching this video. I can never understand why someone would get everyones hopes up. People die from cancer all the time and its a very sensitive subject. People rely on doctors to guide them to the right way to better themselves so all the doctors who could have been using his data could have been mistreating these poor people. This could cause so many lawsuits all because one person decided to commit data fraud. It's truly disappointing and now makes me have to think twice about the treatment I am getting.
3. In this case it seems as though data sharing was beneficial because had they not shared the data, it's possible this man wouldn't have been caught and people would have continued being mistreated. Doctors could have continued using this data, news stations could have broadcasted that we finally had a cure for cancer which would have been false news.
4. Since people tested this and the person tested died not too long after the test, why isn't this man in jail and why is he still being celebrated for accomplishments for cancer research? Has this man not been charged/caught for the crimes he committed? Why does this man still have a job conducting research?

Briannansamuels (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2019 (PST)

Sahil Patel Reflection

1. No, I was not aware of this case of research fraud before watching this video.
2. I was extremely shocked and disappointed when watching this video because I have always looked up to doctors growing up and never doubted their integrity. This made me question the freedom that scientists and doctors receive in their research and if we can really trust everything that researchers do. I believe that he should not have been able to get away with this and something should have been done earlier.
3. Data sharing was very important in uncovering this fraud and I believe that this openness can only help find other examples of cases similar to this.
4. I would like to know more about what he was thinking when trying to push his accomplishments over the true outcome of his research. How can his research possibly mask taking someone's life?

Sahil Patel (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2019 (PST)