A vocal advocate for science integrity and reproducibility believes Pfizer’s recent call to retract five cancer research papers should be commended even as the field struggles with irreproducible science. At the same time, it points to the continued need to improve research oversight.
C. Glenn Begley, former head of oncology and hematology research at Amgen, believes this latest example of flawed research is just the tip of the iceberg — not for industry specifically, but for all published science.
With the Rise of AI, What IP Disputes in Healthcare Are Likely to Emerge?
Munck Wilson Mandala Partner Greg Howison shared his perspective on some of the legal ramifications around AI, IP, connected devices and the data they generate, in response to emailed questions.
“These retractions appear to be intentional image duplication, but there’s an entire spectrum of flawed research published in journals at every tier,” Begley said in an interview last week.
The New York company’s actions come in response to allegations of data manipulation by a 13-year veteran of the company. The papers in question were published between 2010-2013 and centered around the efficacy of a Pfizer enzyme inhibitor.
While Begley believes this example highlights the need for companies to continue to improve their systems for research oversight, the issue is even more important for academic researchers.
“I’ve been in this same situation with universities that have refused to retract the papers or discipline the scientists responsible,” Begley said. “There’s a perceived stigma around retractions and acknowledging researcher error. Pfizer should be congratulated for dealing with this so openly.”
A Personalized Approach to Medication Nonadherence
At the Abarca Forward conference earlier this year, George Van Antwerp, managing director at Deloitte, discussed how social determinants of health and a personalized member experience can improve medication adherence and health outcomes.
While Big Pharma fraud attracts more attention, Begley said the incentives are far greater for academic scientists to exaggerate, “cherry-pick,” or deliberately bias their results. A 2013 study of 140 cancer research trainees found over 30 percent had felt pressure to confirm a mentor’s hypothesis, even when the science wasn’t there.
The fallout from rushed or sloppy published science is very real. A 2016 report by Nature found 52 percent of surveyed researchers believed there to be a significant crisis of reproducibility. A further 38 percent felt there was a slight crisis. Others have written about a chronic inability to translate research findings into the clinic.
A Pfizer spokesman told MedCity News that the company takes allegations of research misconduct very seriously.
Source: Getty Images
