郭磊先生在科学网指控哈佛包庇造假，就像一块石头扔进了水池，溅起了些许水花，立刻就平静了。一旦这几篇相关的博文退缩到视野以外，事件也就像从未发生过。

    曾经沧海，自信早已洞察这案子的预后，却对三件事感到意外：一是科学网编辑的胸怀，让读者饱了眼福；二是居然有王志明老师插手，而且卓有成效；三是难得有Dr. James Whitfield做了客观公正的评论。现在事件应该已成为历史，在被完全忘记之前，本人想对Dr Whitfield的评论略说几句。因为他的评论不长，为了方便，全文转贴如下（粗体为本人所加）：

PPR哈佛PKD：Comment on the Harvard story from Dr. James Whitfield
Personal comment from Dr. James Whitfield:

Thank you for sending me this sad story of a person being unable to repeat a laboratory's important experiments. A person from my lab also once went to work in another lab and could not repeat their important published data, but unlike Dr Guo, he wisely left without making trouble. Surely this could, indeed should, should, now be resolved by doing exactly what Dr Chen has done. He appears to have found no or only a very low level of WTPC-2 in the cilia of his MDCK cells. This could mean that these cells don't concentrate normal PC2 in the cilium and that the PC2 that does get there eventually is a non-specific secondary intrusion and that some mutant PCs do somehow get in albeit slowly. But this seems to mean that the PC2 is not a normal cilial component. Thus, the key fact from Dr Chen is that there is a problem here which must be resolved for the sake of those of us who have written about the calcium-mediated mechanodriven signaling from the kidney cell cilium. I am surprised that apparently the Harvard people did not take a little time and effort to defuse this problem by carefully arranging an independently monitored set of experiments to verify or definitively refute Dr Guo's potentially serious observations.

Dr. James Whitfield
Researcher Emeritus of the National Research Council of Canada
http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=224077

    Dr Whitfield首先指出，郭先生因为不能重复实验结果就声张质疑的做法不明智，聪明人的做法是不露声色悄悄离开。也就是说对这种事不可大惊小怪，声张起来对大家都没好处。

    其次，Dr Whitfield认为哈佛人如果能令人信服地证明实验结果可以重复，将是对郭先生最有力的反击。言外之意，不理不睬好失面子。

    沉默是金，我相信这事也就这样不了了之，不会再有下文了。作为举报者，能听到Dr Whitfield这两句公道话自然已经是非常幸运，应该心满意足；而尚未卷入麻烦的清白科研人员则要牢记Dr Whitfield的金玉良言：别少见多怪，是非只为多开口！

    上次说过： 造假不要紧，剽窃是祸根。附一条刚刚看到的新闻，看看人家造假的功底：买通科学家签署论文刊登在有声望的医学杂志上（所以说如今科学家名声不好并非血口喷人），还为造假专门创办专业杂志！如今事情败露了，但那些科学家们被处理了吗？那些造假论文撤回了吗？

Milanda Rout April 09, 2009
Article from: The Australian
SCIENTISTS were allegedly recruited by a pharmaceutical giant to put their names on research done by the drug company to promote the safety of its anti-arthritis drug Vioxx.
The Federal Court has heard that Merck & Co "prepared and gathered" doctors and academics to write the company's own research on Vioxx, which was then published in prestigious medical journals as independent studies.
The drug company also allegedly produced an entire journal -- called The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine -- and passed it off as an independent peer review publication. These claims were put by lawyers acting for Graeme Peterson, who is suing Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary Merck, Sharpe and Dohme for compensation.
The 58-year-old -- along with more than 1000 other Australians -- claim Vioxx caused their heart attack or stroke.
The drug was launched in 1999 and at its height of popularity was used by 80 million people worldwide because it did not cause stomach problems, as did traditional anti-inflammatory drugs. It was voluntarily withdrawn from sale in 2004 after concerns were raised that it caused heart attacks and strokes and a clinical trial testing these potential side-effects was aborted for safety reasons.
Merck last year settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the effects of Vioxx for $US4.85billion ($7.14 billion) but made no admission of guilt.
Counsel acting for Mr Peterson, Julian Burnside, told the court this week the drug company sought out and recruited scientists, academics and doctors to put their name to Merck's own research.
He said medical journal expert George Jelinek would testify that the articles were designed to "reassure the medical profession" about the safety of Vioxx.
The trial, before judge Chris Jessup, continues.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25311725-5013404,00.html

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自陈巨川科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-209989-225228.html


下一篇：国外医学期刊的作者署名顺序问题