Difference between revisions of "Resource:A562c502-9648-4b90-b823-125bbb53e2b6"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Lapses in Oversight Compromise Omics Results | |Title=Lapses in Oversight Compromise Omics Results | ||
| − | |Is About= | + | |Is About=Commentary on the Anil Potti case discussing relevant institutional changes in avoiding such misconduct. Potti was a researcher of cancer genomics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. His studies had linked changes in the expression of patients' genes with how they responded to cancer treatments, and independent statisticians had raised concerns about published papers linked to the work before clinical trials were initiated based on them. As the commentary highlights, there were a list of failures in the system of research oversight and integrity at the research institution, which must be corrected. |
| − | |Important For=Researchers | + | |Important Because=It highlights the importance of institutional practices on research oversight and integrity that could serve as safeguards against research misconduct and other ethics failures. |
| + | |Important For=Researchers; Administrators; Ethics committee members; Policy makers | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
|Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/lapses-in-oversight-compromise-omics-results-1.10298 | |Has Link=https://www.nature.com/news/lapses-in-oversight-compromise-omics-results-1.10298 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Resource=Resource:5b8e9f7c-7c80-4aa5-9a01-cada03fe4533 | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |||
|Has Timepoint=2006 | |Has Timepoint=2006 | ||
|Has Location=United Kingdom; Duke University | |Has Location=United Kingdom; Duke University | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty | ||
| − | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Clinical trials; Retraction | + | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Falsification; Clinical trials; Retraction; Conflict of Interest; Research Environments; Research Misconduct |
| − | |Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine | + | |Related To Research Area=Clinical Medicine; LS 02 - Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:47, 25 October 2020
ResourcesCases
Lapses in Oversight Compromise Omics Results
What is this about?
Commentary on the Anil Potti case discussing relevant institutional changes in avoiding such misconduct. Potti was a researcher of cancer genomics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. His studies had linked changes in the expression of patients' genes with how they responded to cancer treatments, and independent statisticians had raised concerns about published papers linked to the work before clinical trials were initiated based on them. As the commentary highlights, there were a list of failures in the system of research oversight and integrity at the research institution, which must be corrected.
Why is this important?
It highlights the importance of institutional practices on research oversight and integrity that could serve as safeguards against research misconduct and other ethics failures.
