Slashdot Mirror
Iowa State AIDS Researcher Admits To Falsifying Findings
theodp writes "'With countless lives depending on their work,' writes Brett Smith, 'it seems unthinkable that AIDS researchers might falsify their work. However, that's just what Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han has admitted to, according to federal documents.' Han resigned from the project in October after admitting to tampering with samples to give the appearance that an experimental vaccine was causing lab animals to build up protections against HIV. According to the NIH, Han apparently spiked rabbit blood with human blood components from people whose bodies had produced antibodies to HIV. 'This positive result was striking, and it caught everybody's attention,' said the NIH. However, researchers at other institutions became suspicious after they were unsuccessful in duplicating the ISU results. The Iowa State AIDS research project had been awarded $19 million in federal grants over the past several years. Han has agreed to be banned from participating in any federally-financed research for three years."
Is it any surprise that extraterrestrials want nothing to do with us?
little miss dna cannot be wrong & never fakes it when it counts
Han has agreed to be banned from participating in any federally-financed research for three years.
That's it? I would expect a little more than a slap on the wrist.
...and that kid barred from practicing medicine or research EVER. Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.
It is the same society, or should I say global system of power, which features:
- pollution for a theoretically and practically impossible continuous growth model;
- introduction of new substances with incomplete testing;
- laws against honest labelling...
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
ISU cannot afford to allow such a small punishment for a breach in their scientific intergrity. Oh no, no government funded research projects for three years. How about ever? And a requirement to disclose this information before taking any position. Peoples lives depend on this research. Maybe false hope is better than no hope to the average person, but that doesn't fly in science.
For many researches it takes more than 3-years to get a federal grant (if they don't falsify results that is), how is a 3-year ban from federally-financed research any sort of punishment for such dishonesty?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
sounds like a conspiracy to me. There has to be more to this story than just a professor doug tampering with samples and resigning
...Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.
You got that right, this is the kind of offense regularly done at the Capitol..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol
Han has agreed to be banned from participating in any federally-financed research for three years.
WTF??
3 years are enough to spend on holidays. Sure he agreed to that, lol. Wasn't this a fraud that potentially endangered lives?
You seem to think Caucasians are different. They're not just different, they're better. Better at not getting caught cheating. But they're still lying cheating sacks of fucking shit.
Academic dishonesty is how academia functions. There's no return on investment for actual work, only the perception of work. Hence liars get funding and research does not occur.
...and that kid barred from practicing medicine or research EVER.
No use, the kid will end up with a great job in politics.
Aids history
It is disgusting...
Dr. Dong-Pyou Han is a Korean.
He cheated.
So was Dr. Woo-suk Hwang, who fake the data on cloning back in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwang_Woo-suk
Koreans can never be trusted.
Never !
While it's true that both Dr. Hwang and Dr. Han are Koreans, not all Koreans are cheaters.
Similarly, not all non-Koreans are non-cheaters either.
But I sense something terribly wrong in the set-up at Iowa State U.
You see, Dr. Han's immediate superior is Dr. Michael Cho, and as the supervisor of Dr. Han, Dr. Cho has failed to keep a close eyes on the researches being carried out by his subordinates.
And while Dr. Han has had his wrist slightly slapped (only ban for 3 year). Dr. Cho, the boss, never was reprimanded for his own dereliction of duty.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Yeah! From now on everyone has to cure their own AIDS.
But "Han Dong Pyou" is not a Chinese.
Chinese names do not have any spelling that even approaching "pyou".
I am a Chinese, I know.
BTW, I never cheat in my study. I don't have to.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Calling it "fraud" is a stretch. Saying "potentially endangered lives" is a wildly fanciful leap of hyperbole.
While I agree that what Dr. Han did was not "endangering lives", you gotta tell us what about the $19 million grant that he got because he falsified his test data ?
Dr. Han has cheated. No matter how high that guy has achieved in his academic study, he has failed something much more important than scholarly status - he does not have even one iota of moral cell in his body.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
He basically stole $19M. That's $19M that could have been used for *real* research to help people.
He's a piece of crap.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Much more societally damaging: Wakefield
in 2009, the FDA paid for a test on electronic cigarettes. The test came back screaming formaldehyde, acrolein and heavy metals. What the public later found out, the tests were done on dry e-cig cartridges (ie: no liquid was used, so the cartridges burned up), but to this date, the FDA claims that "they don't know what's in them". The recent CDC study on teen e-cig use is also as equally flawed.
In global warming research, when someone tries to duplicate your research they are called a denier and their reputations are trashed instead of you for falsifying data. At least thats what has happened so far with people like Phil Jones.
When you encourage people to lie in science in one area, and do everything to protect their invalid research, why would anyone be surprised when it goes into other fields? This has been a trend over the last few years. Every time a scientist has a "breakthrough" and someone tries to duplicate it, the person doing the duplication is attacked as a non-beliver, and then if they are funded by anyone even remotely attached to the GOP it suddenly becomes a "GOP is anti-science" story. This kind of thing is just what you would expect to start happening commonly now. Until people pull politics out of science it will continue to get far worse before it improves at all.
Fraud hurts the integrity of the scientific community and especially in this case, society as a whole. A soft punishment does not reflect the gravity of the felony. As a professor in bio-related science I am sure he is well aware of how our species treats cheaters.
academic dishonesty is treated as an entitlement among the wealthy in all countries. you won't really think all those senator's sons really have what it takes to graduate from Harvard do you?
(well technically they do, #define what_it_takes Daddys_money_buying_a_new_gym)
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Comedy Gold (tm).
I wonder how many peer reviewed papers he has had published?
I don't understand why he's not being charged with criminal fraud.
Didn't they also get 'more' money to continue the research? If so, when are they going to give it back? In another article I read on this it stated to the effect, "It's not customary for universities to return such funds." I also found this quote interesting... “As a matter of fact, I think the team came up with more novel ideas during the past four months than the past four years I have been at Iowa State University,” Cho wrote. Translation: "Han's work got us the money, but we weren't counting on him to bring us a win."
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
One thing's for certain. He'll be buggered if a group of aids sufferers get hold of him.
"it seems unthinkable" - only to braindead idiots who actually believe that MOST 'researchers' or so-called 'scientists' actually give a shit about anybody else.
HIV is not the cause of 'AIDS', and 99% of the idiots on Slashdot don't even know what 'AIDS' is.
Here are five simple examples of just a fraction of the massive FRAUD that most of modern 'research' is, funded by the NIH:
When an agency like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) throws about $15 billion each year—nearly half its entire research budget—at thousands of experiments on animals, it's impossible for the public to keep track of all the cruel and useless projects for which its tax dollars are being squandered to cause animals pain and suffering.
And even though public opposition to experiments on animals is greater than ever, there is apparently no project too trivial or too stupid for NIH to throw money at.
Case in point: Right now, NIH is funding dozens of bizarre, stomach-churning sexual behavior studies in which animals have the sexual pleasure area of their brains damaged and their genitals mutilated. Animals are sexually stimulated by experimenters, observed having sex, and subjected to other twisted procedures.
NIH has spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on these sex experiments, and these five are just some of the most upsetting projects currently receiving funding:
1. Mice and rats electrically stimulated after penises mutilated and injected with chemicals
Location: Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Experiments: Experimenters cut all the skin off the penises of live mice and rats, electrically stimulated their penises with electrodes for up to five minutes, and injected their penises with various chemicals to see if they'd sustain an erection. The animals were then killed, and their penises were cut apart.
Cost to taxpayers: $2,792,144
2. Mice's sex drive tested after brains burned
Location: Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
Experiments: Experimenters locked female mice into restraint devices, drilled holes into their skulls, and burned lesions into their brains. The females were then presented with urine samples from castrated and intact males, and the amount of time they spent sniffing each urine sample was recorded. In a subsequent experiment, the females were placed with males and the females' sexual receptivity as indicated by their back-arching behavior was observed and rated. All of the mice were killed and dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,505,173
3. Rats' sex drive tested following Prozac injections and removal of ovaries
Location: Texas Woman's University, Denton, Texas
Experiments: Experimenters injected female rats with antidepressant drugs and placed them with male hamsters. The females' sexual receptivity, as indicated by the downward arching of their backs, was observed and measured. The experimenters then manipulated the female rats, surgically removing their ovaries and injecting sex hormones, and again observed the rats' sexual behavior.
Cost to taxpayers: $2,024,949
4. Hamsters' sex drive tested following brain damage
Location: University of California–Berkeley, Berkeley, California
Experiments: Experimenters cut into the skulls of female hamsters and implanted tubes into their brains and pumps into their scalps. Saline or hormones related to sexual behavior were pumped into the females' brains, and the animals were videotaped as they were able to see, smell, and hear—but not touch—a male hamster. The sexual receptivity of the females to male hamsters was measured through their vaginal scent markings. Experimenters used brushes to stimulate the female hamsters, and the extent of sexual receptivity as indicated by their back-arching behavior was observed and rated. The animals were then killed, and their brains were dissected.
Cost to taxpayers: $1,817,502
5. Rats' interest in drugs tested following brain damage and sex withdrawal
Location: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
The Iowa State AIDS research project had been awarded $19 million in federal grants over the past several years.
There's money in it for someone. And plenty of it.
"Iowa State University assistant professor Dong-Pyou Han" may not have the money for fancy lawyers but "Iowa State AIDS research project" or the "Iowa State University" most probably have some on they payrolls.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
*their payrolls.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
" when someone tries to duplicate your research they are called a denier "
Nope, but it's a common self-image in public of denier morons, though.
"At least thats what has happened so far with people like Phil Jones."
You mean the Phil Jones who was asked by McIntyre for data McIntyre ALREADY HAD, asked for data Phil Jones DID NOT HAVE and then whined and bitched about how the data wasn't available because Phil Jones had to give it to him, rather than the arsehole do some damn work and get the data himself like Phil Jones did?
According to the NIH, Han apparently spiked rabbit blood with human blood components from people whose bodies had produced antibodies to HIV. 'This positive result was striking
Perhaps we could spike human blood with rabbits blood components from those whose bodies had produced HIV antibodies. Bunny ears are know to help for night terrors so why not bunny blood for HIV?
And not doing the experiment again but checking that the sums added up would not make one.
So quite how your retardedness managed to jump to that conclusion is something only you and your arse will understand.
Would you like a list of Americans, English, Germans, French, Spanish, etc who have falsified data as well? Guess you can't trust anyone without their results being reproducable.
If only we had a method for that..
LOL, what is shows is you can't get away with cheating in science in the long run. There is always the underlying reality that will catch up to you sooner or later. The fact that in 20+ years no one has been able to show any substantial fraud in climate research means you aren't likely to find any. The thought that all of the thousands of climate researchers are in on a multi-decade conspiracy to hide the truth is ludicrous. It puts you firmly in the camp of conspiracy theorists.
...and that kid barred from practicing medicine or research EVER. Getting caught cheating in a professional field where people's lives are at state should be a capitol offense.
Or just give him AIDS and let him decide if he wants to fuck with the research again.
[Sorry, that was really mean.]
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Actually I would classify as a climate heretic. 20 years is a blink in time, the Soviet fraud lasted 75 years. Geophysical reality is getting ready to run over this CAGW scam like a bug on the road when things really start to chill out ca 2020.
"20 years is a blink in time", well, we have 200 years science and 100+ years showing AGW.
Jump off a building.
You do not have to fall very far to be able to predict with reasonable accuracy what your destination will be and when you'll get there, even though it's a blink in time.
" when things really start to chill out ca 2020."
Yeah, whaddaya know. 6 years from you is no blink in time.
Got any science to back that up, bud? Or was that just bullshit?
Conspiracy theorists? Those guys who thought the NSA was intercepting all our email?
Anyway, a bunch of climate researchers got caught in a conspiracy to do a number of things, in particular including manipulating the peer review system to keep contrary research out of peer reviewed journals. Since the warmists are in charge, nothing happened to them, with some publications which ordinarily cover such things refusing to cover the scandal.
If you have secret information that it's going to as you say "really start to chill out ca 2020" you should publish it so we can all see it. So far geophysical reality is not cooperating with your hypothesis. Climate scientists may be wrong about some things but if they are they're honestly wrong, not deliberately falsifying their work. With the scrutiny climate science has been getting over the past 20+ years if there was some fundamental problem with it we would have found it. Climate scientists may be wrong about some things but if they are they're honestly wrong not deliberately falsifying evidence.
That's another LOL. I presume you're talking about the controversy over the Soon & Baliunas paper published in the journal Climate Research in 2003. That paper has methodological flaws that should have been caught in review and weren't. They used precipitation and drought proxies without assessing their temperature sensitivity and conflating regional temperature change proxies with global changes. Even the publisher of Climate research admitted as much. Five editors resigned from the journal rather than remain associated with such shoddy journalism. Climate scientist were protecting the integrity of the peer review process by calling out a failure in it.
I've heard about this a lot as well, however it is always the denialists who are scheming on how to manipulate data to prove their point at any cost. Or how billionaires have funded the institutions that keep denialists in big bucks and to create propaganda for them to belch forth. Or how entire petrochemical industry consortiums exist with the sole purpose of deliberately fuzzing any facts about climate change that might hit the news.
If you have done credible research with a natural conclusion against the current consensus, you get to call yourself a heretic. If you can at least show why there is legitimate doubt about the current consensus you might just qualify as an ultra-conservative or naysayer. Otherwise you're pure psycho-ceramic.
one would be surprized how much of the academic research is falsified on small scale, there is a reason more than 50% of the experiments can't be reproduced outside a lab
They are wrong about a lot of things. One of the most important aspects of science and integrity is realizing and admitting when a model is busted. After 15-20 years, the GW temperature predictions are rapidly falling out of the 95% interval, even at solar max. You might do more reading of the critics and emergent models.
Mostly the GW "cognoscenti" have withheld physical evidence and records (see ClimateAudit), fudged data (increasingly funky "adjustments"), done poor stats, ignored critics, shepherded reviews, and engaged in wholesale ad hominem, with enforcers like the Piltdown Mann. And many, like Algore have made fraudlent fortunes - fun and profit.
How odd, you all will readily accept scientists will cheat when it comes to AIDs research.. but absolutely REFUSE to believe that climate scientists would lie to secure grants, political favor and journal publications.
Sweet troll, I like the way you larded in facts to make your fictitious premise fatter.
You should get a whole lot of dittoheads and AGW deniers modding you up as soon as they notice your post. Be patient, the people who hate education tend to read pretty slow.
If you think the global climate models are "busted" then it probably has more with your lack of understanding of what climate models are designed to do than it has with any failure of the models themselves. For instance many say the climate models haven't predicted the slow down in atmospheric warming since 1998. But climate models are not (and probably cannot be) designed to predict the unpredictable natural variations such as ENSO and volcanic eruptions. They aren't expected to predict climate on that short a time scale and it you think they should the problem is with your expectations.
I checked ClimateAudit out some when I first heard about it (years ago) but I just find it a font of misinformation. If you want to cite something I'd actually go read try Dr. Roy Spencer. At least he has the scientific knowledge to be coherent in what he writes.
"In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained by contemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. "
Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?
Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmannand Eduardo Zorita Institute for Coastal Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Geesthacht, Germany(2) Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany