Saturday, July 01, 2006

A University of Montreal researcher was just sentenced for falsifying work in an effort to be awarded federal grants. From our ethics course, we have learned that what this man, Eric Poehlman, has done is unethical. The interesting part of this case is that is marks the first time in the USA that a researcher would serve time in prison for falsifying data to obtain federal grants.

Dr. Poehlman is a specialist in exercise physiology whose work on menopause, aging, hormone replacement, obesity, and Alzheimer's was all manipulated (changed and forged) in an effort to receive federal funding. Dr. Poehlman explained that his actions were a direct result of "pressure to win federal grants, saying the number of grants a researcher received 'determined your academic wealth'". Just as the level of a salesman is determined by how much he sells, the status of a research scientist is determined in part by the type and number of grants they have been awarded.

We certainly know that Dr. Poehlman is not the first US scientist to falsify data but his actions come at a time when people are taking this kind of misconduct very seriously. The first researcher charged with a federal crime for falsifying results to get a federal grant was a Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who was subsequently convicted in 1988 but escaped jail time.

Poehlam falsified data over the course of his career and used those preliminary findings in applications for 17 grants with funding more than $11 million. Thankfully many of the applications were denied, but a few were accepted and they totaled $2.9 million. As a result of defrauding the federal government, the court has permanently barred Poehlman from getting more federal research grants, and was ordered to write letters of retraction and correction to several scientific journals, in addition to jail time.

The issue at hand here is, even if the research ultimately led to a greater good, the damage he has caused by falsifying data may lead to further setbacks in the field as well as losing the respect of the public who entrusts Scientists with their tax-money. We can be thankful that Dr. Poehlman's deceptions, however small they might be, were caught and can now be corrected. Often deceptions such as these can lead an entire field down the wrong path for decades and compromise the work of other un-affiliated scientists.

For more information on this case, you can read the original article published by the Boston Globe.

The real question is: How often do scientists under academic or other pressures (personal gain, etc.) feel it is justified to falsify (change AND create) data?

My answer: More often than we think.

Friday, June 30, 2006

My Immersion Experience in NYC
Hello Everyone! Welcome to what I feel will be the experience of a lifetime. I have never been in an operating room or procedure room without being the person to be poked and prodded. I am looking forward to every minute that I am able to spend in the hospital (watching and not being the patient). The trip to Weill was nice. The luxury coach was nicer than I expected. Our driver was really cool which made for a better trip, at least in my estimation. Well, enough with the pleasantries, its time for the meat of this communication.

My clinical mentor for the summer is Dr Howard. A. Riina, Associate Professor of Neurological Surgery. On Monday, we had our first meeting and I immediately began refreshing myself on vasculature of the head and neck. There are so many blood vessels and nerves that feed the head and neck. I was given a few pneumonic devices to aid me in remembering the vasculature, however, I will not elaborate at this point. You must inquire in person and I will try to recall.

Over the past week, I have seen many interesting cases. All have been aneurysms but many different types and the approaches taken to correct the problems have been quite different also. Methods used to treat the aneurysms have ranged from Vascular Neurosurgery to using Interventional Radiology. Presently, I have seen 3 craniotomies, one of approach of vascular neurosurgery and 6 interventional cases. On my next blog, I will try to give pictures but I have to wait on my physician for these.

Craniotomies are one of the most invasive techniques and therefore have the longest recovery time. In performing this procedure, the physician cracks the patient's skull and carefully dissects down to the area of the aneurysm, making sure to avoid blood vessels, and finally "clipping" the aneurysm. Clipping emerged has emerged over the last 20 years as being one of the best ways to isolate the aneurysm from impacting the rest of the body. The equipment used for “Clipping” are you guessed it, “clips.” They range from as little as 3 mM. They have both temporary and permanent. The permanent clips are never removed from the patient’s head. I will details “clips” more in depth later.

For Interventional Radiology, the physician places a catheter in the femoral artery and navigates through the vasculature to the level of the aneurysm in the brain. Initially, learning that this could be done to fix disorders in the heart, I was amazed. Now that I know the utility of this in neurosurgery, I am absolutely flabbergasted. With that being said, I am obviously speechless so stay tuned for my next blog.

Julius Korley