Difference between revisions of "Resource:E3784228-2d49-4f58-abd2-268f94652da2"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Cases |Title=The Whistleblower and Penn: A Final Accounting of Study 352 |Is About=. |Important Because=. |Important For=Researchers }} {{Link |Has L...") |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=The Whistleblower and Penn: A Final Accounting of Study 352 | |Title=The Whistleblower and Penn: A Final Accounting of Study 352 | ||
| − | |Is About=. | + | |Is About=This is a factual case about a whistle-blower’s story on ghost-writing of a misleading article. The ghost-written article is commissioned by a pharmaceutical company and presents its negative results as if they are positive outcomes. The case details how the whistle-blower is actively opposed and frustrated to prevent him coming forward with the story, while there are no repercussions for those who are accused of scientific misconduct. This case clearly describes the extensive system of pharmaceutical companies through which they may generate studies with favorable outcomes. |
| − | |Important Because=. | + | |Important Because=Ghost-writing and misrepresentation of negative clinical trail results as more positive ones may lead to harm for patients that are treated with the drug studied in the clinical trail. Moreover, these practices may diminish the public trust in science and undermine our current scientific system, as they may cast considerable doubt on the reliability of scientific publications. Furthermore, it shows that the current scientific environment is unsafe for whistle-blowers. This is detrimental as it is another obstacle for whistle-blowers to come forward with their story and may cause future whistle-blowers to remain silent. However, the present case clearly shows that we desperately need whistle-blowers in our scientific community. |
|Important For=Researchers | |Important For=Researchers | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
|Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/the-whistleblower-and-penn-a-final-accounting-of-study-352/ | |Has Link=https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/12/the-whistleblower-and-penn-a-final-accounting-of-study-352/ | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | {{Related To}} | + | {{Related To |
| + | |Related To Theme=Theme:Fe62e07c-2e75-4a55-82e6-1908fa543b7a | ||
| + | }} | ||
{{Tags | {{Tags | ||
| − | |Has Timepoint=29-12-2019 | + | |Has Timepoint=29-12-2019; 2019 |
|Has Location=USA | |Has Location=USA | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability | |Has Virtue And Value=Honesty; Accountability | ||
Latest revision as of 14:59, 30 April 2021
ResourcesCases
The Whistleblower and Penn: A Final Accounting of Study 352
What is this about?
This is a factual case about a whistle-blower’s story on ghost-writing of a misleading article. The ghost-written article is commissioned by a pharmaceutical company and presents its negative results as if they are positive outcomes. The case details how the whistle-blower is actively opposed and frustrated to prevent him coming forward with the story, while there are no repercussions for those who are accused of scientific misconduct. This case clearly describes the extensive system of pharmaceutical companies through which they may generate studies with favorable outcomes.
Why is this important?
Ghost-writing and misrepresentation of negative clinical trail results as more positive ones may lead to harm for patients that are treated with the drug studied in the clinical trail. Moreover, these practices may diminish the public trust in science and undermine our current scientific system, as they may cast considerable doubt on the reliability of scientific publications. Furthermore, it shows that the current scientific environment is unsafe for whistle-blowers. This is detrimental as it is another obstacle for whistle-blowers to come forward with their story and may cause future whistle-blowers to remain silent. However, the present case clearly shows that we desperately need whistle-blowers in our scientific community.
