Brief summaries of other cases of research misconduct

This section contains brief summaries of 13 further research misconduct cases in addition to the 20 full case-studies already posted. Each of these cases has at least one interesting feature that I considered made it worthy of inclusion such as: an unusual modus operandi; a country’s first criminal prosecution or custodial sentence for research fraud; an ultra-determined whistle-blower; a Nobel prize-winner accused of dishonest representation of his findings; or, fraudulent research said to have had significant impact upon policy. These mini reviews were largely written in 2015.

Elias Alsabti

 Alsabati was an Iraqi medical student who went to the USA in 1977 and worked at various research centres there. He moved from Iraq to Jordan to study medicine but never completed his medical degree there but he did manage to obtain Jordanian sponsorship for his studies and research in the USA. He was accused of fabricating data but his main modus operandi was to make a new manuscript from a published paper, replace the author’s name with his own and then re-submit the totally plagiarised article to another obscure journal somewhere in the world. In this way he could generate a very impressive publication list but with low risk of being found out.

John Anderton

At the age of 63 years, Anderton, a consultant physician in Edinburgh, was struck off the medical register for fabricating data in a drug trial being conducted for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. Anderton had been a consultant renal physician for 26 years and been Secretary of the Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh. Anderton had set up a renal transplant unit in Edinburgh and it was said that his failure to stop the closure of this unit triggered a mental breakdown which led to his fraudulent activity. Investigations into some of his previous work found no other irregularities and so he appears to be an exception to the general rule that research frauds are usually multiple offenders.

Anderton was found to have forged patient consent forms and invented data relating to echocardiograms and magnetic resonance images. Suspicions were aroused when it was noted that the fabricated clinical data was submitted using forms that had been discontinued by the laboratories where the tests were supposedly conducted. Anderton persuaded his personal assistant to lie during the initial audit by claiming that she had witnessed patient consent forms being signed. He also invented a medical collaborator who he claimed had supplied some of the bogus data. Anderton retired once his fraud was exposed.

Anjan Kumar Banerjee

This is a remarkable story of multiple deception, dishonesty, cover up and poor management spanning more than 25 years. Banerjee was a consultant surgeon who made headlines in the British press in June 2014 when he was awarded an MBE for his services to patient safety despite having been struck off the medical register in 2002 for gross professional misconduct.

In the late 1980s, Banerjee, who had already published many research papers, began research under the supervision of Professor Tim Peters and they both moved to King’s College London in 1988. At an early stage, other colleagues questioned the authenticity of Banerjee’s research and whether he had used co-authors names without consent and these doubts were made known to Professor Peters. In 1990 an abstract of some of Banerjee’s results was submitted for presentation to the British Society of Gastroenterology in the names of Banerjee, Peters and three other colleagues. This paper was never presented because Banerjee admitted faking the data for this study and it was withdrawn. Twelve urine samples said to be from 12 subjects were actually samples of his own urine. The withdrawal of the presentation was too late to prevent publication of the abstract in the journal Gut which was not informed about the false data. Later in 1990, a full paper was published in Gut in the names of Banerjee and Peters; other collaborators refused to have their names associated with it. The paper looked at inflammation in the guts of rats given a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.  Professor Ingva Bjarnason told Peters that animal house records suggested that Banerjee had obtained just 70 rats but claimed that he had used 1200. It was also said that he had used more radioactive material than had been supplied to the whole department and had used apparatus that he did not have access to or had not been trained to use. At the time Bjarnason claims that he was warned that pursuing this matter further could hamper his future career.

An internal King’s inquiry concluded in 1991 that much of the data reported by Banerjee since 1988 “is at best unreliable and in many cases spurious”. The paper and abstract were not, however, retracted until after Banerjee had been found guilty of misconduct by a GMC hearing in 2000. Neither the GMC, nor the grant awarding body were informed of Banerjee’s behaviour in 1991 and he left King’s and went to work as a consultant surgeon in Halifax. He was awarded a research degree by London University and made a Hunterian Professor by the Royal College of Surgeons partly because of his false data. Banerjee was eventually found guilty of falsifying research data by a GMC hearing in 2000 after pressure from Professor Peter Wilmshurst who has been involved in pursuing other research fraudsters. Banerjee was suspended from the medical register for a year. Professor Peters was also found guilty of serious professional misconduct for failing to prevent Banerjee from fabricating research but he was given a severe reprimand rather than a suspension. Wilmshurst also suggested that senior doctors at King’s and the University of London were complicit in covering up Banerjee’s fraudulent activities and that Banerjee’s laboratory notebooks were destroyed.

In 2002, Banerjee again faced the GMC, this time for financial misconduct; he misled patients about NHS waiting times for procedures to persuade them to opt for private treatment and he tried to charge for procedures not conducted. Again he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct and this time struck off the medical register. As is permitted, Banerjee applied for reinstatement to the register after five years and was duly re-instated in 2007. He subsequently obtained a pert-time surgical position at a hospital in Bedford and became deputy managing director of Pope Woodhead Associates a company that specialises in testing new medicines, reviewing the safety of existing treatments and developing treatment guidelines for hospital patients. In 2014 Banerjee was awarded an MBE for services to “patient safety” for his work with Pope Woodhead. Several British newspapers quickly reported his chequered past and some of these suggest that he returned his MBE after his past was revealed. An article published in the Daily Mail in June 2014 suggested that Banerjee had paid a commercial company that specialises in helping to frame applications for inclusion in the honours list.

 Anupam Bishayee

 This example is remarkable not because of the allegations against Bishayee but because of the extraordinary lengths that would be whistle-blower Dr Helene Z Hill has gone to in order to try to expose him and make her case that he fabricated data whilst working as a postdoctoral fellow at Rutgers University in New York. Hunt first made allegations of data fabrication against him to the university ethics committee in 1999. When this committee found that the case was not proven she then reported her suspicions along with supporting statistical evidence to the ORI. Once again the case was found to be not proven despite suspicious features in his work. Hill has spent over $200,000 pursuing Bishayee unsuccessfully in the US courts. She has attempted on numerous occasions to get a statistical analysis of the raw data in his notebooks published in a scientific journal; she believes that this analysis proves that the data was not obtained honestly. Despite being threatened with termination of her employment for her determined or obsessive pursuit of the accused, at the age of 86 (2015) she remains in post as a Professor at Rutgers and is delaying her retirement until a journal agrees to publish her analysis of Bishayee’s raw data. The accused has held a succession of academic posts across America despite the actions of Hill and at the time of writing was professor and chair at a new health institute in Florida.

John Darsee

Darsee was a doctor and medical researcher who worked in the cardiology department at Harvard Medical School from 1979-1981. He published several papers in prestigious journals including some dealing with the recovery of damaged heart muscle when blood supply was restored after a period of occluded circulation. A number of his papers have since been retracted. He was first the subject of an internal investigation after allegations of data fabrication were made against him and he lost his position when irregularities were found in his laboratory note books. Later in the same year an investigation by the National Institutes of Health NIH, who had funded Darsee’s research, found evidence of widespread data fabrication. The NIH was very critical of those who had conducted the internal investigation and required a large amount of research grant money to be repaid. Darsee had his licence to practice medicine revoked in 1984.

Steven Eaton

Steven Eaton was an English-born scientist who in 2013 at the age of 47 years was jailed for 3 months in Edinburgh for altering the results of preclinical tests in laboratory animals on potential drugs. At the time of these offences, he was working at the Edinburgh site of an American pharmaceutical company called Aptuit. Their laboratories were based on the site of the campus of Heriot-Watt University just outside the city although the facility is now closed.

Eaton falsified results which suggested that the drugs he was testing were effective and suitable for use in patients. After his trial it was suggested that he may have been falsifying drug tests for more than a decade whilst working for various pharmaceutical companies. Eaton is the only person I have found who has received a prison sentence for activities relating to research fraud in the UK. He was prosecuted under 1999 Good Laboratory Practice Regulations which require anyone testing drugs and many other chemicals to comply with good laboratory practice (GLP) and to belong to a GLP monitoring programme. It is an offence to make false statements relating to good laboratory practice instruments punishable by a fine or imprisonment.

Hwang Woo-Suk

The story of Hwang is a remarkable rollercoaster of rise to fame, dramatic fall and then phoenix-like rise to fame again. He is a Korean veterinarian and stem cell scientist who has undoubtedly had considerable success in cloning animals; in August 2005 his group produced the world’s first cloned dog and this authenticated claim was published in Nature. In 2004, he published two headline-making papers in the journal Science. In the first of these papers he claimed to have produced an embryonic stem cell line from a cloned embryo using a technique in which the nucleus of an ordinary body cell was transplanted into a human egg cell. A few months later he claimed to have produced a further eleven such cell lines which were each genetically identical to the donor of the cell nucleus. These stem cells have great therapeutic potential for regenerating diseased or damaged tissue and thus could be used in the treatment of a whole range of human diseases. These cells would match the genetic make-up of the donor and thus would be tailored to the individual patient.

Hwang’s troubles began when in 2004 and 2005 he was accused of breaching ethical rules in obtaining the human egg cells for his research. He was accused of using his students as donors and also of paying donors for their eggs. One of his international collaborators Professor Gerald Schatten from the University of Pittsburgh announced publicly in November 2005 that he had ceased collaborating with Hwang because of ethical concerns about egg donations. The following month the Seoul National University (SNU) where Hwang was based, launched an investigation into his activities. In early 2006 an SNU report found that his human cloning research was fraudulent and the 11 cell lines in the second Science papers were established embryonic stem cell lines that had been obtained from a fertility clinic and falsely labelled. The authenticity of his dog cloning work was confirmed. Hwang was dismissed by SNU in March 2006. In 2009, he was found guilty in a Korean court of breaching the country’s bioethics laws and of embezzling government funds i.e. by using false data to obtain funding. He initially received a 2 year suspended prison sentence which was later reduced to 18 months. He was also banned from doing further human cloning work.

Hwang still maintains that one of his stem cell lines referred to as NT-1 is authentic and he has, in recent years, manged to patent this cloned cell line in several countries. Some scientists have supported his claim but the balance of evidence suggests that these cells were produced as a result of parthenogenesis i.e. egg cells that start dividing without being fertilised by a sperm.

Many Koreans and others continued to support and back Hwang despite his fall from grace and in 2006 he started up a private research facility in Korea, the Sooam Foundation using funds provided by his supporters. Hwang has run this facility since then and it specialises in producing cloned animals especially dogs, cows and pigs but also wolves and coyotes. He charges wealthy pet owners to produce clones of their pets and also clones animals which have been produced who have symptoms similar to human diseases including Alzheimer’s disease for use in medical research. The Sooam Foundation was granted permission to do human stem cell research in 2007 but as of 2014 had not done so. This foundation and Hwang have produced many peer-reviewed papers in respectable scientific journals since 2006. Only the two Science articles claiming producing of human specific stem cell lines from cloned human embryos have actually been retracted from the literature. It does seem as if Hwang has at least partly been rehabilitated since his worldwide disgrace in 2006. The scale of his disgrace around the world is illustrated by an archive of articles relating to Hwang on the New York Times web-site which list no less than 15 negative pieces from its archives dealing with criticisms, accusations and legal findings relating to Hwang .

In recent years, Hwang has again been in the headlines for his efforts to clone a long extinct woolly mammoth. A well-preserved female mammoth that was embedded for 40000 years in permafrost in Siberia and Hwang has been collaborating with Russian scientists since 2012 in efforts to try to produce a clone of this mammoth. They hope to be the intention would be to extract a viable cell nucleus from this preserved mammoth carcass and then implant this into the de-nucleated egg cell of an elephant.

The animal in question has attracted worldwide attention because of its incredibly good state of preservation. The animal has recognisable skin, flesh and even liquid blood in and around the carcass. In the UK, an autopsy of this mammoth has been the subject of a full length documentary programme on Channel 4 television (Sunday 23 November 2013).  An article in The Siberian Times in March 2015 reported that the first attempt at trying to extract a cell nucleus from the carcass had failed even though some intact skin cells had been found. In the same month a group at Harvard University led by a professor of genetics George Church told The Sunday Times in the UK that they had managed to insert fragments of DNA from this mammoth into cells taken from a live elephant; this would theoretically allow eventual production of elephants with some mammoth characteristics. As at April 2015, I could not yet find reports of these findings in any peer-reviewed journal.

 William McBride 1927-2018

McBride was an Australian gynaecologist and obstetrician who is widely credited with playing a key role in 1961 in first alerting the world to the link between pregnant women taking the drug thalidomide and a range of catastrophic birth defects in their babies. In 1993 he was struck off of the Australian medical register for deliberately falsifying research data – the classic hero to villain story.

Thalidomide was developed by a German pharmaceutical company in the 1950s and marketed amongst other things for the alleviation of morning sickness. The drug was widely used in many countries (not the USA) and it is estimated that somewhere around 10,000 babies were born with a variety of birth defects as a result of its use and about half of these survived into adulthood. Babies born with missing or severely abnormal limbs (phocomelia) is the defect associated in the public mind with this drug. In 1961 McBride had attended 3 births in Australia within a short period where the babies were born with missing arms bones and with bowel problems and all three died soon after birth. In December 1961, a letter from McBride was published in the Lancet suggesting a possible link between use of thalidomide in pregnancy and limb abnormalities in babies and asking whether other readers had noted similar problems. He later suggested that publication of this letter occurred some months after he had first contacted the Lancet. In Germany in 1961, Widukind Lenz had also made the same association and reported his suspicions to the German manufacturer of the drug on November 16th and he succeeded in getting the drug withdrawn before the end of the month. McBride’s letter was less than 100 words long but had a major impact upon his life and career from that point onwards. He subsequently did studies on the mechanism by which thalidomide caused deformities and also the window of time when the developing embryo was susceptible to its effects. McBride received several honours as a result of his work with thalidomide: in December 1962 he was named Australian of the year by Sydney’s Daily Mirror, he was awarded a CBE in 1969 and the Order of Australia in 1972.

Also in 1972 he was awarded a prize of A$40,000 from a French institute for his thalidomide work and he used this award to set up a research institute to investigate birth defects which he named Foundation 41 because of the 41 weeks that pregnancy lasts. He later made claims in the press that an anti-depressant caused birth defects but later had to concede that he had no evidence to support these claims. He then became involved in the late 1970s in a campaign to suggest that another extremely widely used anti-nausea drug Debendox also caused birth defects if taken by pregnant women. Major studies by others did not support these claims. Debendox contains an anti-cholinergic drug and so in 1980 McBride instructed two of his employees at Foundation 41, Bill Vardy and Jill French, to give another anti-cholinergic drug hyoscine to pregnant rabbits. This pilot experiment used just six rabbits and did not have any controls and it did not produce any clear evidence of teratogenic effect of hyoscine. In June 1982, Vardy was very surprised to see a paper by McBride, Vardy and French published in the Australian Journal of Biological Sciences presenting results of the rabbit experiment he had conducted for McBride but with major differences in methodology, with extra rabbits and with a clear indication of harm caused by the drug.  Neither Vardy nor French had agreed to this publication and so they confronted McBride and shortly after this they resigned from Foundation 41. Seven other colleagues at Foundation 41 complained to an advisory committee at Foundation 41 and after a short investigation, two professors on this committee asked McBride to retract the paper which he has never done.  The seven complainants were immediately made redundant for financial reasons; a decision later ruled unfair by the Australian courts.

In 1987 after considerable adverse publicity in the Australian media, Foundation 41 established a Committee of Inquiry into allegations of research fraud relating to this article and this report was published in November 1988. The conclusions of this report were summarised in the Australian Journal of Biological Science in the same year. The report concluded that deliberately falsified data was included in the paper and these specific acts of falsification were listed in the journal. After a very prolonged hearing before a professional conduct committee, McBride was struck off of the Australian medical register in 1993 for deliberately falsifying data. He did admit to this committee that he had altered some of the dosages given to the rabbits and that he had taken:

 “Short cuts which a scientist should not take and, as a result in publishing material which was false and misleading, and I regret this”.

He also complained, as did some of his supporters, that he was the victim of a conspiracy to silence him by big pharmaceutical companies. McBride was re-instated to the medical register after 5 years in 1998.

Robert Millikan

Robert Millikan was an American physicist who was awarded the 1923 Nobel prize for physics for his work in determining the electric charge on electrons (the tiny negatively charged particles that circulate the positively charged atomic nucleus). Anyone who has studied physics beyond the elementary level will at least have heard of Millikan’s oil drop experiment. Whilst Millikan undoubtedly got the right result and published authentic data, it is said that he was selective in the data he published and misled his readers about the way this data was selected. His laboratory note books show that he collected data on around 175 drops over a 5 month period starting November 1911. In his first publication of this data Millikan presented data on just 58 drops which supported his hypothesis but said in the paper that data presented was:

“Not a selected group of drops, but represents all the drops experimented upon during 60 consecutive days”.

He underlined this statement in his paper to emphasise the point.

I made a conscious decision not to include case studies from the physical sciences on this blog but as a Nobel prize-winner accused of misrepresenting the totality of the data in his most important studies, I decided to include a short summary of this case.

Eric T Poehlman

Poehlman was a prolific and well-respected scientist based mainly at the University of Vermont but also at the Universities of Maryland and Montreal. More than 200 of his papers remain in the scientific record and these papers focused on research areas including obesity, the effects of aging and the menopause and the effects of exercise and training. His case is particularly significant because in June 2006 he became the first scientist in the USA to receive a prison sentence for activities relating to research fraud. He was convicted by a federal court in Vermont of making a false statement in a US federal grant application and was sentenced to a year and a day in prison. He had previously been fined $180,000 and banned for life from receiving federal research funding. The case is also unusual and interesting because of the impact on the whistle-blower. In several of the other cases discussed on this blog, whistle-blowers have suffered harassment, intimidation and career damage as a result of their whistle blowing. In this case the whistle-blower received a $22000 share of the $180000 recovered from Poehlman by the federal authorities. This is because under US law a whistle-blower with knowledge of a fraud against the government by a contractor is entitled to file an action against the perpetrator and receive a share of any monies recovered. This is known as a qui tam writ which is an abbreviation of a Latin phrase meaning “who sues for the king as well as for himself”. In the Anupam Bishayee case outlined earlier, Dr Helene Hunt tried unsuccessfully to use this qui tam route to prosecute her allegations against Bishayee but she eventually ended up with a substantial legal bill.

Poehlman was unmasked when in September 2000 he asked a colleague to write a paper using a set of data that purported to be a variety of physical, dietary, metabolic and biochemical measurements made on a sample of elderly subjects at two time points approximately six years apart see how these measurements had been affected by aging. When Poehlman saw the summary data for the paper, he said that he would check the database and correct any errors. The amended version of the database contained many values that were reversed or fabricated. Overall the changes increased the apparent number of subjects and reversed some of the age-related changes seen in the original version of the data set.

In another study that had been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 1995, Poehlman again reported a series of measurements on women made six years apart at around the time of the menopause. This study seemed to show that going through the menopause led to immediate and undesirable changes in several health-related measures but this study was never actually conducted; he fabricated much of the data and never saw the women a second time.

After an inquiry by the University of Vermont and an oversight review by the Office of Research Integrity, it was decreed that 10 of his papers should be retracted or corrected. He was found to have been falsifying and fabricating data for over a decade in papers and grant applications. During this period he obtained around $3 million in NIH funding and also used false data in support of applications to other federal funding agencies. In addition to committing research fraud, Poehlman also made strenuous efforts to obstruct investigations into his conduct and even accused a junior colleague of falsifying some of the data. He tried unsuccessfully to use the courts to prevent the University of Vermont from notifying the ORI about its pending investigation.

Eventually Poehlman pleaded guilty to a felony offence at a federal court in Vermont. He had signed an application form on which he acknowledged that making any false claims to support his application made him liable to civil and criminal penalties and he also accepted that as the principal investigator he was responsible for the scientific conduct of the study. More recently Poehlman has been working as an IT support adviser at a private college in Vermont.

Kristin Roovers

Roovers was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania who was discovered by an editor of the Journal of Clinical Investigation to have extensively manipulated a western blot image by one of the journal’s editors during a spot check. The journal notified the US federal ORI and she was subsequently found to have extensively manipulated images in three published papers. I was tempted to include her as my second female case study. Image fraud has become a major problem and a majority of accusations of research fraud dealt with by the ORI involve some form of image manipulation or falsification. The ORI banned Roovers from working for any US government agency for five years. She returned to Canada and in June 2008 she was dismissed from a position at the Ottawa Health Research Institute when they found out about her previous fraudulent activities at the University of Pennsylvania which she had not made known before her appointment.

Hannes Strasser

Strasser was a urologist and assistant professor at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. In 2007, Strasser and nine Austrian colleagues (including his head of department Georg Bartsch) published a paper in the Lancet in which they claimed that injecting muscle stem cells into the urethra cured many women suffering from stress incontinence. At this time Strasser was part owner of a commercial company involved in developing this type of treatment. This paper was retracted by the Lancet in 2008 after an official investigation by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety found that the study did not get proper ethical approval and that there was a failure to properly inform patients that the treatment was experimental. The editor and executive editor of the Lancet wrote at the time of the retraction:

In the report, the inspectors raise doubts about whether the trial as described in the Lancet ever existed”

Even though Strasser was found to be solely responsible for the misconduct and Professor Bartsch exonerated in this respect, this editorial piece in the Lancet also reminded co-authors of their responsibility and said that honorary or gift authorship is unacceptable.

The University of Innsbruck unsuccessfully sued Strasser and Bartsch for the cost of Strasser’s treatment of his 400 patients. Strasser was fined for providing false testimony during a civil case brought by a patient who had received the treatment. Many of Strasser’s patients reported that they had not improved after the treatment and some claimed that they had suffered serious complications including sealing up of the bladder and bladder rupture. Strasser was found to have carried out clinical trials without ethical approval or informed consent, to have failed to supply raw data to support his publications and to have falsified legal documents. Nevertheless in 2011 an Austrian employment tribunal ruled that he should be given back his teaching post at the University of Innsbruck.

Mark Williams

Williams was a 43-year-old lecturer in Public Health Medicine at Bristol University when he was struck off the medical register for fabricating the results of a highly praised paper that may well have influenced UK policies relating to the Care in the Community programme. In this paper, Williams claimed to have interviewed 181 severely disabled people and conducted a physical examination to identify the unmet needs of these people. He claimed to have re-interviewed these people a year later to see if the unmet needs that he had identified were then being met. His conclusions were that health professionals did not properly supervise the meeting of these needs but for nominal extra cost these needs were met when a social worker was involved in the process. This paper was published in 1993 and co-authored by Dr Cameron Bowie, emeritus director of public health for Somerset, England.

Dr Bowie later heard that Williams had been accused of falsifying statistics in another department of the university. He had produced a table of data for a paper to be submitted to the BMJ but one of his co-authors Professor Stephen Frankel was not confident about the data and so had it re-analysed. Williams then admitted his guilt, resigned and took a clinical position in another town until he was struck off the medical register.. The paper was published in the BMJ with corrected data and still with Williams as a co-author.

When Bowie subsequently contacted the subjects that Williams claimed to have interviewed for their joint paper, he found that none had actually been interviewed and the data fabricated; this paper was retracted in 1998. The chair of the GMC panel stated that Williams had displayed:

 “An appalling lack of integrity, which is totally unacceptable in a registered medical practitioner”.


Broad, W and Wade, N (1982) Betrayers of the Truth 1985 paperback edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Multiple cases)

Lock, S and Wells, F (eds) (1996) Fraud and misconduct in medical research (2nd edition). London: BMJ Publishing Group. (Multiple cases)

Webb (15/07/2018) Whistle-blowers and research fraud – we should reward not shoot the messenger. (general)

Dyer, C (1997) Consultant struck off over research fraud. British Medical Journal 315, 205. (Anderton)

Ferriman, A (2001) Professor faces GMC for failure to prevent and report fraud. British Medical Journal 322, 508.  (Refers to role of Professor Tim Peters in the Banerjee case)

Arnold, BB (2014) Medical research fraud and vetting. Barnold law (blog) 12 June 2014. (Banerjee)

Davies, D (2014) Article related to Baneerjje MBE award. Mail online 28th June 2014 (Banerjee)

Yong, E, Ledford, H and van Noorden, R (2013) Research ethics: 3 ways to blow the whistle. Nature 503, 454-7. (Bishayee)

Helene Z Hill Details Hill’s accusations against Bishayee and her efforts to get her suspicions and evidence published.

BBC (2013) Scientist Steven Eaton jailed for falsifying drug test results.

Cyranoski, D (2013) Cloning comeback. Nature 505, 468-71. (Hwang)

Leake, J (2015) Science close to creating a mammoth. The Sunday Times 22nd March 2015. (Hwang)

Mc Bride, WG (1961) Thalidomide and Congenital abnormalities. Letter to the editor. Lancet 2 1358.

Swan, N (2018) Dr William McBride: The flawed character credited with linking thalidomide to birth defects. ABC News

Anon (1983) Note on the paper “effects of scopolamine hydrobromide on the development of the chick and rabbit embryo by W.G. McBride, P.H. Vardy and J. French. Australian Journal of Biological Science, 36, 171-2.

Milliken, R (1993) Thalidomide doctor guilty of medical fraud. The Independent 20th February 1993.

Goldstein, D (2001) In the case of Robert Andrew Millikan. American Scientist Jan-Feb 2001 pp54-60.

Interlandi, J (2006) An unwelcome discovery. The New York Times 22nd October 2006.  (Poehlman)

Pascal, CB “005) Major misconduct case: Eric Poehlman, Ph.D. University of Vermont. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) presentation.

Poehlman, ET (2005) Letter of apology for falsification of data. American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology and Metabolism 289, E357.

Anon (2008) Researcher suspended for falsifying data. Nature 459, 969. (Roovers)

Strasser, H, Marksteiner, R Mangreiter, EPingerra, GM, Mitterberger, M, Frauscher, F, Ulmer, H, Fussenbegger, M, Kofler, K and Bartsch, G (2007 RETRACTED) Autologous myoblasts and fibroblasts versus collagen for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 369, 2179-86.

Retraction notice at:

Editorial (2008) The role and responsibilities of coauthors. Lancet 372, 778. (Strasser)

Abbott, A (2008) Report finds grave flaws in urology trial. Nature, 454, 922. (Strasser)

Abbott, A (2011) Austria reinstates disgraced doctor. Nature 477, 384. (Strasser)

Dyer, C (1998) Doctor admits research fraud. British Medical Journal 316, 645. (Williams)

Dobson, R (1998) Science: Doctoring the evidence. The Independent 9th August 1998. (Williams)



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s