When good research goes bogus
The news about Dr. Dipak Das and the 145 cases of falsified data is devastating to me. I was aware of the recent flurry of retractions in the scientific literature, and was even discussing the misconduct of that Harvard professor as recently as Monday with my too smart friend. But something about these accusation, and his response, is much more alarming.
Despite over 150 articles in PubMed on cardiac health, and his role as the director of the U Conn’s Cardiac Research Center, his major contribution will now be to what is becoming all too familiar — bogus science. The major issue noted by the 3 year review team involves image manipulation of study data. It gets better, they aren’t just counter-factual, the review board determined that some make “no resemblance to any legitimate experiment”. And to top that off, he claims he does not know who made the blots. Really Das?
At first I was disgusted, but somewhat sympathetic. The pressure to publish, the need to bring in grants, I can understand how initial good intentions may have gone wrong. But the claim that you don’t know who made the blots is simply ridiculous. Your lab may have duped the reviewers, editors, and grant officers that let your by, but to you also think everyone in the world is a fool?
Why? Why? Why?
1 Comment