…by Jonas E. Alexis
We have written at least four articles over the past seven months discussing the moral and intellectual inadequacy of the widely held theory that Jewish behavior is genetic.
We have also seen how geneticists like Harry Ostrer have deliberately fudged data to pursue their own ideological agenda and to make sweeping assertions about behavior and moral responsibility.
This did not really surprise me at all. For some scientists, ideology is prior to real research. Some scientists would even magically summon evidence out of thin air so that they could preserve and cherish their preconceived notions.
What if the so-called evidence is wild and ridiculous? It doesn’t matter. For some, the essential issue is that if the “evidence” seems to support their ideology, then it passes the “scientific” test.
Those scientists usually fudge data when no one is watching over their shoulders. Modern psychiatry is riddled with this practice. Here are some glaring examples.
In 1991, the Chicago Tribune came out with a report entitled, “Institute: Gene Study Data Faked.” The so-called “gene study” was produced by Jewish molecular biologist David Baltimore, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1975.
The Baltimore affair is a long and sad story and we have much to cover in this article. Let us just summarize the story.
Margot O’Toole, a 38-year-old immunologist and post-doctorate fellow at MIT, actually discovered a deliberate fudging by her supervisor Thereza Imanishi-Kari, who was working with Baltimore. O’Toole asked Baltimore to retract.
Baltimore refused. Instead, he called O’Toole “a disgruntled postdoctoral fellow.” O’Toole was immediately removed from her research position and was unable to find job anywhere. She recounted,
“I was devastated. I had tried for so long to become a scientist, only to find out it was just a board game.”
O’Toole, who was born in Dublin and came to America at the age of 14, probably did not know that questioning the powers that be in America is a code red. O’Toole’s mother, after hearing about the news, said:
“It was like seeing an eagle flying, and then someone clipped her wings.”
This was not an exaggeration, for O’Toole was a rising star. She graduated from Brandeis University in 1973, got a Ph.D. in cellular immunology from Tufts, and joined the MIT lab in 1985, which was then supervised by Thereza Imanishi-Kari, one of the key players who actually fudged the data.
All her career came to an abrupt halt because she did not keep her mouth shut. Late historian of molecular biology Horace Freeland Judson noted that “the Baltimore affair epitomizes, and on a grand scale, the arrogance of power.”
But that the story did not end there:
“Walter Stewart, a self-appointed watchdog of scientific inquiry at the National Institutes of Health, obtained a copy of the disputed lab notes from O’Toole and brought the matter to the attention of Michigan Rep.
“John Dingell, the powerful chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. During three subsequent congressional hearings, Dingell was deluged with letters from scientists accusing him of conducting a witch hunt.
“However, Secret Service tests of the ink and paper used in Ishimani-Kari’s notes indicated that she had later inserted crucial data to cover up the original fabrications.
“At long last O’Toole was gloriously vindicated. Last month an NIH draft report censured the research, criticized Baltimore and called O’Toole’s actions ‘heroic.’
“O’Toole, moreover, has resumed her career as a scientist, working as a cancer researcher at the Genetics Institute in Cambridge, Mass. Her dismay with Baltimore, who has retracted the infamous paper but has yet to apologize to her, has softened. ”
Yet Baltimore and his coauthor Thereza Imanishi-Kari never got dethroned from their position.
At the end of 2012, biological psychologist Pete Etchells of Bath Spa University and epidemiologist Suzi Gage reported in the British newspaper the Guardian,
“Science is broken. Psychology was rocked recently by stories of academics making up data, sometimes overshadowing whole careers…
“A recent paper in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that since 1973, nearly a thousand biomedical papers have been retracted because someone cheated the system.
“That’s a massive 67% of all biomedical retractions. And the situation is getting worse – last year, Nature reported that the rise in retraction rates has overtaken the rise in the number of papers being published.”
Evolutionary psychologist Marc D. Hauser of Harvard is our next example. Hauser is author of Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.
Hauser spent much of his career arguing that the notion of right and wrong is simply a product of evolution.
Yet Hauser was found guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct. This actually stunned his colleagues and supervisors, who thought that he was on the path of discovering something in primate behavior and animal cognition. After all, he was viewed as “a rising star for his explorations into cognition and morality…”
Yet Hauser’s dream came to an abrupt end in 2010. The reports state that Hauser intentionally fabricated and deliberately misinterpreted data from certain experiments studying monkey behavior and then pressured students to accept his research without examination.
Some students refused, however, and brought the data to his superiors as proof that he was forging evidence. One of Hauser’s graduate students complained:
“The most disconcerting part of the whole experience to me was the feeling that Marc was using his position of authority to force us to accept sloppy (at best) science.”
Finally, Hauser admitted that he had committed some grave errors. “I acknowledge that I made some significant mistakes,” he said. He moved on to say that he was “deeply sorry for the problems this case had caused to my students, my colleagues and my university.”
Hauser subsequently resigned from Harvard in 2011 and went out of sight.
Yet Hauser was hardly the only one to have engaged in scientific misconduct. In 2012, the Scientist declared,
“University of Kentucky biomedical researcher Eric Smart was discovered to have falsified or fabricated 45 figures over the course of 10 years. His research on the molecular mechanisms behind cardiovascular disease and diabetes was well regarded, despite his having used data from knockout mouse models that never existed.
“Setting the record for the most publications up for retraction by a single author, Japanese anesthesiologist Yoshitaka Fujii fabricated data in a whopping 172 papers.
“Beginning his career in falsification in 1993 while at the Tokyo Medical and Dental University, he continued it at the University of Tsukuba, and at Toho University in Tokyo, where he was finally dismissed in February 2012.
“According to investigations, Fujii never actually saw the patients he reported in his clinical studies, failed to get ethical review board approval for his research, and misled co-authors, sometimes including their names without their permission or knowledge.
“The results from roughly 34,000 criminal drug cases were put into question earlier this year, when forensic chemist Annie Dookhan at the shuttered Department of Public Health Lab in Massachusetts was discovered to have falsified records on samples she was assigned to process.
“Instead, she forged signatures and did not perform tests she recorded as complete, according to investigations.
“Suspicions may have first arisen due to her impressive output—she claimed to have processed 9,000 samples in a year, whereas colleagues only averaged around 3,000. As a result of her actions, a number of defendants may have been wrongly imprisoned, while others who may have been rightly accused were freed.
“Rather than falsify data in order to get published, researchers have taken a new tack this year by writing glowing expert reviews for their own papers.
“When asked by journal editors to suggest names of experts in their field who were not involved in their research, at least four submitting authors suggested names and emails that then forwarded back to their own inboxes.
“The trend, first reported by Retraction Watch, was caught by one journal editor when author Hyung-In Moon, assistant professor at Dong-A University in Busan, South Korea, offered up names of reviewers with Google and Yahoo rather than university email accounts.”
“A University of Connecticut researcher who has conducted hundreds of studies on the health benefits of compounds found in red wine has been punished by the school for faking data on numerous occasions throughout his career.
“Dipak Das, director of cardiovascular research at [University of Connecticut], fabricated data in 145 separate instances, according to an extensive, three-year investigation conducted by the school. The university has frozen all external funding to Das’s lab and has declined $890,000 in federal grants awarded to him.
“The university has notified 11 journals regarding Das’s misconduct, potentially triggering the retraction of several published studies on resveratrol, a phenol found in red wine.
“Das’s work formed part of the scientific foundation for the claim that resveratrol conferred cardio-protective benefits and could even increase longevity by activating proteins called sirtuins, which regulate transcription, apoptosis, and stress resistance in the human body.”
Last year, China Daily reported,
“From 2010 to June 30, 2013, the [National Natural Science Foundation of China]‘s disciplinary supervision committee received 468 complaints related to scientific misconduct, 152 of which were filed by complainants using their real names. In recent years, at least 80 cases of research misconduct have been uncovered by the foundation. More here