FDA limits research of former AHA president for submitting false information
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7377.1377/a (Published 14 December 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:1377All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
As I read the article many questions came to mind.
Is he [Faxon] representative of the unethical behavior that allows politically motivated frauds rise to the top of prestigious organizations?
The article states: “he [Faxon] submitted false information to the trial sponsor.” Who was the sponsor? Are they marketing the drug in question? Have they been disciplined for not monitoring their “researcher.”? Were his “co-researchers” sanctioned?
The article further states: “In July 2000, [three months after notification] Dr Faxon became section chief of cardiology and professor of medicine at the University of Chicago.” Had he informed the University of Chicago of his censure? Have they dismissed him for bringing the discredit to their reputation that [t]his deception deserves to bring to any organization associated with such a “researcher”?
I agree 100% with the comments of Anibal J. Morillo. My answer to his question, “By allowing -and thus permitting the sponsorship- of a scientist whose methods have been questioned -and proven as wrongful-, is the FDA becoming a new accomplice to fraud?” is a resounding “YES!!!”
Is it any wonder that when this kind of fraud results in only a regulatory wrist slap, there is professional acquiescence, and no significant consequences to the perpetrators, that such abuses go on?
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I believe that authors without a real compromise with their publications, lightly called "irresponsible coauthors" should really be considered accomplices if found guilty of fraud. When a principal author is the only one punished, all the irresponsible coauthors will continue to participate and even promote fraudulent scientific behaviour.
If there is enough evidence for a scientist's hoaxes, why only limit his participation in research? Why not ban him completely? If academic institutions reward charlatans with academic appointments, there seems to be no hope to solve this ethical issue. Can we expect serious research from a University that has chosen an ethically questioned scientist as chair to one of its clinical departments?
By allowing -and thus permitting the sponsorship- of a scientist whose methods have been questioned -and proven as wrongful-, is the FDA becoming a new accomplice to fraud?
Anibal J. Morillo, MD
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Where's the rest of the story?
Did the faulty data allow a marginal drug be marketed? What was the drug that was tested against aspirin? The article about censure did not answer more important questions raised by the sloppy and poorly supervised clinical. I agree, censure of all participants in the research would go a long way in maintaining truth, integrity and accuracy in the clinical research trials. Isn't there a sense of responsibility about the future impact of the drug on the patient and it's potential to harm if the clincials have not been accurate and factual? I agree, censure of all involved would go a long way into maintaining integrity in the total process.
T. Braun RPh
Competing interests: None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests