Difference between revisions of "Resource:E1827d9c-7be0-42ca-bf86-ef5003366ebd"

From The Embassy of Good Science
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Title=Court Denies Appeal of HIV Fraudster’s 57-month Prison Sentence
 
|Title=Court Denies Appeal of HIV Fraudster’s 57-month Prison Sentence
|Is About=This factual case details a court's decision to maintain the prison sentence for a former researcher who was found guilty of scientific misconduct. The misconduct entailed the modification of HIV trial outcomes to make a drug look more effective. The attorney of the defendant appealed the decision, but the court decided to maintain the sentence.
+
|Is About=This factual case details a court's decision to uphold the prison sentence for a former researcher who was found guilty of scientific misconduct. The misconduct entailed the modification of HIV trial outcomes to make a drug look more effective. The attorney of the defendant appealed the decision, but the court decided to uphold the sentence.
|Important Because=Scientific misconduct, especially the spiking of research outcomes, in drug trials severely endangers the health of future patients that will be treated with the drug. In addition, it leads to the waste of research funds and diminishes the public trust in science. Therefore, offenses such as these must be punished.
+
|Important Because=Scientific misconduct in drug trials, especially the modification of research outcomes, severely endangers the health of future patients who will be treated with the drug. In addition, it leads to the waste of research funds and diminishes public trust in science. Therefore, offences such as these must be punished.
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 15:52, 19 August 2021

Cases

Court Denies Appeal of HIV Fraudster’s 57-month Prison Sentence

What is this about?

This factual case details a court's decision to uphold the prison sentence for a former researcher who was found guilty of scientific misconduct. The misconduct entailed the modification of HIV trial outcomes to make a drug look more effective. The attorney of the defendant appealed the decision, but the court decided to uphold the sentence.

Why is this important?

Scientific misconduct in drug trials, especially the modification of research outcomes, severely endangers the health of future patients who will be treated with the drug. In addition, it leads to the waste of research funds and diminishes public trust in science. Therefore, offences such as these must be punished.

For whom is this important?

Other information

When
Good Practices & Misconduct
Research Area
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
5.1.6