Remember that Duke Medical knew that Anil Potti, MD and Joseph Nevins, MD performed serious research that directed affected cancer patients at Duke Medical and throughout the country and world.
Duke Medical has still failed to communicate to Duke cancer patients the impact of the disgraced researcher on their health. Inexcusable, unethical - that is for each patient to decide.
Why then would Duke Medical and JAMA engage in mental gymnastics to validate research that numerous researchers could not replicate? Remember that Lancet Oncology maintained a high level of scientific integrity and retracted a previously questioned Anil Potti paper.
IMHO: Follow the money.
What did the good people at Retraction Watch determine? Read on (with special thanks to ivanoransky) http://goo.gl/8ZvwK
With the third retraction of a paper by Anil Potti this weekend, plus details of various investigations dribbling out, we decided to check in with the world’s two leading medical journals about whether they planned to retract the papers of Potti’s they’d published.
JAMA published two papers by Potti and colleagues: One, “Gene Expression Signatures, Clinicopathological Features, and Individualized Therapy in Breast Cancer,” appeared in 2008. It has been cited 51 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, and was the subject of two letters. In one, a correspondent expressed concerns about the lack of information in the study about
how the biospecimens, which are the foundation of these molecular studies, were collected, transported, preserved, processed, and stored for the actual testing.
The other, “Age- and Sex-Specific Genomic Profiles in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer,” appeared last year, and has been cited five times.
On both papers, a spokesperson told us:
The JAMA editors don’t have any information to share about that paper. Of course, if there is a retraction, it will be noted in JAMA and online.
NEJM published “A genomic strategy to refine prognosis in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer” in 2006 and corrected it in 2007. The study has been cited 290 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
A NEJM spokesperson told us:
I don’t have anything new to report. We don’t have any plans to retract the paper.
We’ll update as we hear anything else.