| Homepage |
| Search |
(doi:10.1038/nm1108-1133b) Positive results of clinical trials for drugs or devices have a higher chance of getting published in the medical literature than negative trials. This leads to “positive publication bias”, a serious problem that can make a drug or device appear to be more effective than it really is. The FDA Amendments Act of 2007 has improved transparency: it mandates that sponsors or primary investigators of clinical trials for approved drugs post a summary of their results in a national open-access database, but it does not cover every type of clinical trial, nor does it directly affect medical journals. Frank DN. Don’t release other people’s data without their consent. Nature 2008;455:589. (doi:10.1038/455589a) Letter commenting on Nature’s report that data photographed during a conference publication were later published without the presenter’s consent. The issue is whether the data are released in a fair and representative manner. Biology operates under the implicit, or often explicit, ethic that data presented at meetings are personal communications, publication of which requires formal approval by the originating researchers. Anyway, what is the purpose of reporting incompletely vetted and possibly erroneous experimental results? Levi BG. Bubble fusion scientist disciplined. Physics Today 2008;61(11):28–30. In the third investigation by Purdue University into alleged scientific misconduct by Rusi Taleyarkhan in connection with claims to have produced nuclear fusion in a tabletop experiment, the committee considered 12 allegations and found sufficient evidence of research misconduct in two cases. The first concerned a paper originally submitted by one author, a postdoctoral fellow, of work in which Taleyarkhan had been involved, and to which he subsequently persuaded one of his masters students to add his name as coauthor after referees’ criticism of the first submission. The second concerned a paper in which Taleyarkhan said his earlier results had been subsequently confirmed, citing the previously mentioned paper. Taleyarkhan appealed the findings but the university’s appeal committee concluded that due process had been followed and the conclusions were based on evidence. © Copyright 2009 by European Association of Science Editors Top of Page |
|
|