Deception at Duke UniversityBy: Kelly VaillancourtSource:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7398476n&tag=contentMain;contentAux*Note: This video is brief (approx. 13:46), and it is important that you watch it in full in order to understand the scope of the issue at hand.Five years ago, Duke University announced that it had found the “holy grail” of cancer research—they’d discovered how to match a patient’s tumor to the best chemotherapy drug. This discovery was a breakthrough because every person’s DNA is unique, therefore every tumor is different. To clarify, and as Scott Pelley noted, “a drug that kills a tumor in one person may not be effective in another”. The scientist behind this discovery was Dr. Anil Potti, who soon became the face of the future of cancer treatment at Duke. In a televised advertisement for Duke’s Cancer Center, Dr. Potti promised the public that his discovery would not only change the face of medicine, but would “revolutionize cancer therapy.”
The breakthrough was made in the lab of Dr. Joseph Nevins, who saw significant potential in Dr. Potti and as a result, became a mentor and supporter of him. Shortly thereafter, research was published under the name of Nevins & Potti, and was featured in prestigious medical journals such as the Journal of Clinical Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Once Dr. Potti’s breakthrough discovery was published, Kevin Coombes and Keith Baggerly of the MD Anderson Cancer Center began analyzing his results. However, what they found did not support Dr. Potti’s discovery; rather, it was quite the contrary. As Baggerly stated in his interview with Pelley, what they found was “odd, and could not be explained.” As a result, Coombes and Baggerly emailed Duke with their questions regarding Dr. Potti’s discovery. Dr. Potti responded himself, saying that the errors found were merely “clerical,” and that new work confirmed his results.
Nevins and Potti applied for patents on the research, and they (as well as the university) stood to make a fortune. Furthermore, they decided to perform a series of clinical trials on a total of 112 patients who signed up. The tumors of the affected patients “would be surgically biopsied in order to be matched with the best drug.”
During the trials, Coombes and Baggerly continued to analyze Dr. Potti’s research. They were able to conclude that Dr. Potti undoubtedly “reversed” a large portion of the data, which would result in patients getting the worst drug as opposed to the best drug for their tumors. This discovery ultimately led to the suspension of the Duke Cancer Center’s clinical trials, and the call for an outside review committee to further analyze Dr. Potti’s research. As it turns out, the review committee concluded that Dr. Potti was right.
As the clinical trials continued, a man by the name of Walter Jacobs decided he would allow his wife Juliet, who suffered from stage IV lung cancer, to undergo a clinical trial. Walter and Juliet Jacobs were told that the chances of finding the right drug were an astounding 80%. However, what Dr. Potti failed to tell them was that the clinical trials had previously been suspended due to errors in his research.
Nevins himself began to review the data from the clinical trials. He soon came to find that when the underlying data disproved that of Dr. Potti, it was changed—meaning Dr. Potti had actually manipulated the data, and Coombes and Baggerly’s presumptions were right from the get-go.
Juliet Jacobs died merely three months after she entered the clinical trial at Duke University’s Cancer Center, and Dr. Potti resigned shortly thereafter. Walter Jacobs has since filed suit.
Questions to Consider:
1. Should Dr. Joseph Nevins resign from Duke University? Do you believe doing so would “preserve” Duke’s image?
2. Did Duke purposely overlook Dr. Potti’s errors because it was more concerned with the financial gains it would receive from the clinical trials?
3. Now that this story has been aired on national television, how should Duke University respond in regards to PR?