Difference between revisions of "Resource:A5e7428e-3972-40b6-b410-cfde15e088d2"

From The Embassy of Good Science
 
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Resource
 
{{Resource
 
|Resource Type=Cases
 
|Resource Type=Cases
|Title=Psychiatrist Engaged in Research Misconduct, Says Gov't ...
+
|Title=Misrepresenting the characteristics of research participants in psychiatric studies
|Is About=This case is about Alexander Neumeister, MD. In studies of anorexia, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), he misrepresented the characteristics of the subjects entered in the research using tactics such as combining data from multiple subjects to represent single subjects to justify financial payments’ and ‘changing and/or instructing his staff to change, omit, or ignore clinical and psychiatric assessment data contained in the electronic and/or written research records<ref>https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/</ref>.
+
|Is About=This factual case is about various instances of scientific misconduct by a psychiatrist. The scientific misconduct ranges from stealing research funds from the government for personal use to the fabrication of data. The psychiatrist is now banned from research funding for two years and must correct or retract four of his previously published papers. <br />
 
+
<references />
 
+
|Important Because=Data fabrication in clinical trials endangers the health of both current participants and future patients that will be treated with the drug if it is ‘proven’ efficacious. In addition, data fabrication lowers public trust in science. Moreover, data fabrication and stealing of funding money for personal use may lead to the waste of precious research funding budgets on unscientific research.
This is a factual case.
 
|Important Because=It is important to realise there are many ways and tactics to fake clinical data.  
 
 
 
 
 
Website Blog (James Moore Blog)
 
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
|Important For=Researchers
 
}}
 
}}
Line 15: Line 10:
 
|Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/
 
|Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/psychiatrist-engaged-research-misconduct-says-govt-watchdog/
 
}}
 
}}
{{Related To}}
+
{{Related To
 +
|Related To Theme=Theme:28a0859b-9e52-4af4-97f0-b0f8eeac1f1c;Theme:5f65272f-6e95-4768-8236-bc821a97f3d8
 +
}}
 
{{Tags
 
{{Tags
|Involves=Alexander Neumeister
 
 
|Has Timepoint=31-12-2019
 
|Has Timepoint=31-12-2019
 
|Has Location=USA; United States
 
|Has Location=USA; United States
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect
+
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Respect; Transparency; Integrity
 
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Grant applications
 
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Grant applications
 
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
 
|Related To Research Area=Clinical medicine
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 17:13, 28 June 2021

Cases

Misrepresenting the characteristics of research participants in psychiatric studies

What is this about?

This factual case is about various instances of scientific misconduct by a psychiatrist. The scientific misconduct ranges from stealing research funds from the government for personal use to the fabrication of data. The psychiatrist is now banned from research funding for two years and must correct or retract four of his previously published papers.

Why is this important?

Data fabrication in clinical trials endangers the health of both current participants and future patients that will be treated with the drug if it is ‘proven’ efficacious. In addition, data fabrication lowers public trust in science. Moreover, data fabrication and stealing of funding money for personal use may lead to the waste of precious research funding budgets on unscientific research.

For whom is this important?

Other information

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