Years After Brigham-Harvard Scandal, US Pours Millions Into Tainted Stem-Cell Field (reuters.com) 21
Faked heart studies by a once-obscure scientist duped the U.S. government and medical establishment for years. Washington is still paying for it. From a Reuters investigation: Mario Ricciardi, a young Italian molecular biologist, was thrilled when he was selected to work with one of Harvard Medical School's most successful stem cell researchers. His new boss, Dr. Piero Anversa, had become famous within the field for his bold findings in 2001 that adult stem cells had special abilities to regenerate hearts or even cure heart disease, the leading cause of U.S. deaths . Millions in U.S. government grants poured into Anversa's lab at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Top journals published his papers. And the American Heart Association (AHA) proclaimed him a "research pioneer."
"He was like a god," recalled Ricciardi, now 39, one of several scientists to speak out for the first time about their experiences in Anversa's lab. Within a year of Ricciardi's arrival in 2011, they grew suspicious, the scientists recalled. They couldn't replicate the seminal findings of their celebrated boss and became concerned that data and images of cells were being manipulated. Anversa and his deputy gruffly dismissed their questions, they said. They took their concerns to Brigham officials, telling them that Anversa's blockbuster results appeared to have been faked. "The science just wasn't there," Ricciardi said.
After an investigation lasting almost six years, Brigham and Harvard wrote in a two-paragraph statement that they had found "falsified and/or fabricated data" in 31 papers authored by Anversa and his collaborators. In April 2017, the U.S. Justice Department separately concluded in a civil settlement with Brigham that Anversa's lab relied on "the fabrication of data and images" in seeking government grants and engaged in "reckless or deliberately misleading record-keeping." Yet federal money has continued to flow to test the proposition advanced by Anversa -- that adult stem cells can regenerate or heal hearts. Over two decades, federal and private grants have streamed into research labs despite allegations of fraud and fabrication against Anversa and others in the field, Reuters found. Meanwhile, no scientist has credibly established that Anversa's regeneration hypothesis holds true in humans, according to researchers and a review of medical literature.
"He was like a god," recalled Ricciardi, now 39, one of several scientists to speak out for the first time about their experiences in Anversa's lab. Within a year of Ricciardi's arrival in 2011, they grew suspicious, the scientists recalled. They couldn't replicate the seminal findings of their celebrated boss and became concerned that data and images of cells were being manipulated. Anversa and his deputy gruffly dismissed their questions, they said. They took their concerns to Brigham officials, telling them that Anversa's blockbuster results appeared to have been faked. "The science just wasn't there," Ricciardi said.
After an investigation lasting almost six years, Brigham and Harvard wrote in a two-paragraph statement that they had found "falsified and/or fabricated data" in 31 papers authored by Anversa and his collaborators. In April 2017, the U.S. Justice Department separately concluded in a civil settlement with Brigham that Anversa's lab relied on "the fabrication of data and images" in seeking government grants and engaged in "reckless or deliberately misleading record-keeping." Yet federal money has continued to flow to test the proposition advanced by Anversa -- that adult stem cells can regenerate or heal hearts. Over two decades, federal and private grants have streamed into research labs despite allegations of fraud and fabrication against Anversa and others in the field, Reuters found. Meanwhile, no scientist has credibly established that Anversa's regeneration hypothesis holds true in humans, according to researchers and a review of medical literature.
My friend's cancer (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend at work is dealing with cancer. A little over a year ago, he started receiving a stem cell treatment that put the cancer into remission.
He asked his oncologist if he was cured and the doctor responded, "let's take it 6 months at a time."
Unfortunately he just found out the stem cell therapy has quit working. But still, he's had a year of living in remission that he otherwise may not have had.
I don't doubt we'll eventually beat cancer but it's going to take a lot of small steps to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
First off: Cancer is complex, and I'm no medic, so take this with a grain of more of salt.
I think the doctor was quite right to be cautious. Stem cells aren't really that reasonable a treatment for cancer. They could be if they propped up the immune system, but they're just as likely to do something else.
Partially grown cells (forget what the name is) sound, to me, more promising. They're already specialized for what kind of cell they're going to grow up to be, so you've got a lot more ability to predic
Re: (Score:1)
The good thing about these stories is that it shows the system works.
Frauds may pop up here and there, as with any human endeavour, but in science, they never endure because of examples like this - others follow to replicate their work or build on it, and the draid is uncovered.
Science it not perfect because humans, the people who do it are not perfect - but it is by far the most robust system we have for determining the truth of how the universe works, and stories like this actually reaffirm that it is wor
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, science will correct itself. But sometimes it takes decades, or even centuries, to do so. Still, science and engineering are our best efforts at finding out what's possible, and what isn't.
Re:Ethically and morally suspect (Score:4, Interesting)
The morning after pill does not kill a living human being. Abortion in the first trimester in the first month also is not, this is a lump of cells with little differentiation. it's only superstition that there's a "soul" attached. The whole stem cell thing was just a smoke screen to push the story of "abortion for profit" I also see very little overlap betwene the pro-choice crowd and the anti-death-penalty crowd, which really says that they don't consider life as sacred as they claim. There's not even scriptural support to be against abortion, the modern pro-life crowd came into existence after Griswold case allowed birth control - that is, they're more about being opposed to birth control than being pro-life. Expect to see the moves to overturn Griswold showing up, and the opinion by Justice Thomas hints at that.
Re: (Score:3)
Expect to see the moves to overturn Griswold showing up, and the opinion by Justice Thomas hints at that.
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
The conservative justice Clarence Thomas appeared to offer a preview of the courtâ(TM)s potential future rulings, suggesting the rightwing-controlled court may return to the issues of contraception access and marriage equality, threatening LGBTQ rights.
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this courtâ(TM)s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion to the ruling on Roe.
Griswold v Connecticut established a married couple's right to use contraception without government interference in 1965.
The court ruled in the 2003 case of Lawrence v Texas that states could not criminalize sodomy, and Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2015.
Information Segregation + Machiavellian Principles (Score:2, Interesting)
Information Segregation + Machiavellian Principles = Successful Lab
That was how many modern labs are run, the average researcher working under the lead investigator don't have any way of checking the facts and that is the way the top fraudster (who is usually a braggart) if there is one, wants it. This is no different that many organizations and even top levels of government such as the 2017-2021 White House. A revealing review from an insider from 2014 in Anversa's lab: https://retractionwatch.com/20. [retractionwatch.com]
Not relevant (Score:3)
Science, in general, is not designed to prevent mistakes or malice. It is because we know we cannot pick winners and losers, and a priori know who is most correct. So money is spent on research knowing the only way to know is to filter over time. Like music becoming classic hits
University Funding Ecosystem (Score:3)
While it's certainly true that science does eventually root out falsifiers and unethical actors, universities are generally hoping they don't have to do any such thing. Many public universities (in the US, anyway) have research grants written in such a way that they include a considerable overhead -- at my last university job a few years ago, it was around 51%, although it notched up a percent or so every year while I was around -- to go toward operations throughout the university. One physics prof would say that he had to modify his grant budgets to pay for the English department, and he wasn't really all that wrong. It's just an amorphous Facilities and Administration (F&A) bracket in the budget narrative, and it largely goes toward administrative staff and... yep, other departments, at least in some measure.
It's in the university's best (short-term!) interest to bury possible issues with grant-funded projects, lest the sponsoring agency stop sending funds, including that sweet, sweet F&A. My university job ended after I pointed out some fraud/waste/abuse going on with a grant I was supposed to help administer, since allowing the fraud to continue while I was trained in what to spot was supposed to mean my head on the block. (Pointing it out, of course, didn't do me many favors, but I'm in a far better place now.) Ultimately, when these kinds of issues are pointed out from within, universities will frequently try to whistle their way out of seeing problems; whereas if the issues are pointed out extramurally, as they are with peer reviewed scientific research subject to wider criticism by the overall scientific community, university Research Integrity and Compliance officers spring into action to make sure they don't get sitebanned overall from future funding from that sponsoring agency.
I still love Stem Cells (Score:2)