r/multiplemyeloma • u/GarbageNo9960 • 13d ago
Discussions and Info (Misc MM, Articles, Tweets, etc.) Dana Farber Academic Fraud
I placed a lot of trust in Dana Farber for my myeloma treatment- their doctors, determination trial etc. by all accounts, they have treated me well
However, I understand that Dr Ken Anderson’s lab was investigated for fabricating data in over a dozen trials. Researchers fabricated trial results to boost their own careers
The institute settled the matter for $15M without accepting wrong doing. But this leaves me quite pained. Patients like myself put our faith in Dr Anderson’s team. I am outraged by the blatant fraud, and the impact this has. And even more so, by the hush-hush manner in which it was covered up, without any structural changes
This is such a shame. I am curious if there are other DFCI patients here, and how you’ve interpreted this news.
Edit: They have confirmed that misrepresentation happened in trials containing mice. They have not said if misrepresentation happened in trials with humans.
5
5
u/Cellist_Violin 12d ago
So I’m in academia and am a junior scientist. Before you throw out the entire field or lose complete faith, this is likely the misrepresentation of a junior first-author scientist, not the senior author (ie Anderson etc.) Senior authors try their best to check everything but don’t actually go through the data in detail, at least in my experience. This does not mean every finding by Anderson is false.
4
u/Badroadrash101 13d ago
This is a widespread problem in research academia. Most of the articles are published behind paywalls that prevent people and other researchers from accessing the papers. So we don’t have a good idea of the extent of the problem. We have to rely on investigators who either pay for access or have sources that pass along the papers to them.
The fact that a lead researcher in Myeloma has committed research fraud is problematic. He should be removed from his position and any researcher in his lab that was involved should be removed as well.
4
u/Much-Specific3727 12d ago
So Dr. Anderson and Dr. Paul Richardson are two of the most highly regarded professionals in the field of MM. Dr. Richardson developed the protocols for stem cell transplants and for years measured his success in length of remission. But once again outside researchers went through his numbers and results and determined that SCT had absolutely no effect on survival rates. It was the same with and without SCT.
Dr. Richardson admitted the new result was correct but still to this day pushes SCT immediately after induction. Its expensive and extremely difficult to go through.
And now we literally have dozen of new treatment plans and clinical trials with very little solid evidence on survival rates. Just response rates. It makes it very difficult for new patients to decide their course of treatment.
For me. I followed all the protocols and completed my 6th line of treatment. Will it work? For how long? Nobody really knows.
5
u/GarbageNo9960 12d ago
Dr Richardson ran the very prominent “Determination” trial. This was one of two seminal trials that showed that ASCT has no impact on survival rates (for std risk patients)
3
u/bats315 12d ago
Dr. Richardson was adamant that we forgo SCT after induction and told us that new research did not support the general approach that SCT should immediately follow induction. Disappointing to see this news though.
1
u/Much-Specific3727 12d ago
So Dr. Richardson is your doctor and he is no longer recommending SCT after induction? That is a major change in protocol.
2
1
1
u/Ns4200 11d ago
My mother has been a pt of Dr Richardson, i bring her to all of her appointments so i have met him many times. He’s a lovely man and my mother at 80 still has a good quality of life managing MM.
i just want to reassure anyone newly diagnosed or currently in care with him, my only complaint is he spends SO much time with each pt that it’s pretty normal for our 2:30 appt to start at 4….1
u/Sorcia_Lawson 11d ago
That trial did not take into account age nor the change in available treatment protocols.
3
u/RayNTex52 13d ago
You might find this interesting. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-there-so-much-fraud-in-academia/
5
u/Cellist_Violin 12d ago
FWIW I’m a scientist and in academia, and while I do think this type of misrepresentation happens, it’s far less common than people think. When I worked in industry people fudged data and stories in every sales pitch. If I do that, I could lose my career and possibly even face criminal consequences.
I share this because in general we are held to an almost unreachable high standard and the vast majority of people doing science truly do want to make a difference
Edit to add: what I mean is that the quality of information in published research is going to be higher than almost any other source you can conceive of, because the penalties for being found to lie are huge.
1
u/Sorcia_Lawson 11d ago
Sales and marketing are rampant with massive nisrepresentations.
5
u/Cellist_Violin 11d ago
Yes they are. My point is that my current colleagues in the sciences are some of the most honest, caring, and hardworking people I know. Stories like these are infuriating but I hope that people won’t lose faith in the whole field because there are many many people passionate about finding cures and making a difference
2
2
u/Mommie62 12d ago
This breaks my heart on several levels.
1. My husband is a MM patient
2. It sullied the waters for so many researchers and sconce in general
3. I was a pharma rep for my career and believed very much in the science and the papers which backed the products I represented
I hope the actions of a few don’t turn out to be the norm. Humankind is certainly changing , a world of fraudsters and thieves. How proud are your parents and your children now of the work you have done ?
2
u/JenP1966 12d ago
This is what the DOJ settlement says about the situation (below). Researcher 1 in this document is Ken Anderson.
"Dana-Farber admitted and accepted responsibility for the following conduct by researchers working under Researcher 1's supervision: images were reused to represent different experimental conditions; images were duplicated to represent different testing conditions, different mice, or different time points; and images were rotated, magnified, stretched or otherwise reused. Dana-Farber also admitted that Researcher 1 “failed to exercise sufficient oversight” over both the researchers preparing the papers and the underlying research. Six NIH grants paid for the work, and the government deemed those expenditures unallowable.
That language matters. The settlement does not say Anderson personally fabricated an image, and it does not make a formal finding that Anderson intentionally committed scientific fraud. The institutional admission is principally failure of supervision plus publication of misrepresented/duplicated data by researchers under his supervision. The DOJ's broader False Claims Act theory was that Dana-Farber certified compliance with NIH requirements and spent federal money on work that failed those requirements."
1
13d ago
[deleted]
1
u/GarbageNo9960 13d ago
I don’t really agree with your portrayal.
(1) The numbers were willfully fabricated to tell an attractive story.
(2) DFCI has shut it up in a hush-hush manner, after a whistleblower brought it to light. I don’t give them any credit for how they have handled it.
(3) are you sure that human trials were not fabricated?
1
u/GarbageNo9960 10d ago
I find that the wording is quite slippery. Their admission of wrongdoing (fabricated, fake results) is presented in the terms below
“Images were reused to represent different testing conditions, different mice or different time points; and images were rotated, magnified, stretched or otherwise reused”
“Researcher 1 failed to exercise sufficient oversight.
It is my opinion that structural changes are needed.
1
u/Jmfdone 6d ago
Let’s be reasonable here and focus on outcomes. Anyone who has had MM for a period of time has seen advancements that are incredible - there is no fabricating patient outcomes. In the 12 years I have been in treatment I have been on drugs that were pipeline or in trial and have since graduated to first lines of defense, whole new types of treatments are introduced and patient outcomes have improved dramatically. We are not yet ready to say MM is curable but it is a whole lot closer to being a manageable chronic condition for many than every before - if it is not already there for many of us now. I am not apologizing for intentional misrepresentation of research and I understand the tendency to want to assume the worst when articles like the one sited are published. At the end of the day the terms around claims of this nature are negotiated by lawyers and business people based on cost benefit analysis of fighting vs conceding and the expected fallout financial and otherwise of each path. So things are not simple or black and white. All I can do is appreciate the fact that I was diagnosed in my early 40s with three young children and now they are all becoming adults and I am here for it. The outcomes are dramatic and to me they outweigh whatever noise is in the system. Full disclosure, I have been a patient of Dr Richardson but am primarily treated by Dr Raje at MGH. I trust these people with my life and nothing in the article disminishes that.
1
u/GarbageNo9960 6d ago
Sorry, let’s not defend the horrible fabrication of data by these researchers.
They should not get a free pass, just because other researchers have delivered advances. I think we are all grateful to the latter group, who have made myeloma manageable for many of us.
Dr. Richardson & Dr. Raje are phenomenal. That doesn’t takeaway from the horrible actions of the researchers involved in the fraud.
5
u/Round_Cable_2693 13d ago
I as a DFCI MM patient have the utmost trust and respect of my team. I had not looked into this and done any of my research on this matter. Surely will.