There is this peculiar blind spot in the culture of academic medicine around whether withholding trial results is research misconduct. People who work in any industry can reinforce each others' ideas about what is okay.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Scientific fraud, plagiarism, and ghost writing are increasingly being reported in the news media, creating the impression that misconduct has become a widespread and omnipresent evil in scientific research.
Hard as it is to imagine, there's a move afoot in Congress to take away the public's free online access to tax-funded medical research findings. That would be bad for medical discovery, bad for patients looking for the latest research results, and another rip-off of the American taxpayer.
Evidence of defendants' lavish lifestyles is often used to provide a motive for fraud. Jurors sometimes wonder why an executive making tens of millions of dollars would cheat to make even more. Evidence of habitual gluttony helps provide the answer.
Any good trial lawyer knows that if you've got one credible expert or scientific study, then you can let the jury decide.
Selling drug secrets violates a trust that is fundamental to the integrity of both scientific research and our financial markets.
Punishment for putting patients at risk ought to reflect the gravity of manufacturing, distributing or selling counterfeit medications.
I think the biggest problem in clinical trials is that they are underpowered. And that fundamentally, the studies are just too small.
What has happened is just cases of athletes neglecting to correctly check the supplement they've had. It's not like they are deliberately or intentionally cheating.
There's strong data that, within companies, the No. 1 reason for ethical violations is the pressure to meet expectations, sometimes unrealistic expectations.
Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.