Difference between revisions of "Resource:E1827d9c-7be0-42ca-bf86-ef5003366ebd"
From The Embassy of Good Science
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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 | + | |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 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 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 15: | Line 16: | ||
|Has Timepoint=13-1-2016 | |Has Timepoint=13-1-2016 | ||
|Has Location=USA; United States | |Has Location=USA; United States | ||
| − | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty | + | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Transparency; Accountability |
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Faked Data | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Fabrication; Faked Data | ||
|Related To Research Area=Biological sciences | |Related To Research Area=Biological sciences | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:52, 19 August 2021
ResourcesCases
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.
