Cancer Research, Carlo Croce, Character Assassination, Civil Death, Clare Francis, Data Fabrication, Data Falsification, Defamation, Defamation lawsuit, First Amendment to US Constitution, Fraud, Ivan Oransky, National Institutes of Health, New York Times, NIH, NIH funding, Office of Research Integrity, Ohio State University, Paul S. Thaler, protected free speech, Research misconduct, Retraction Watch, Scientific corruption, Scientific publication

Stellar cancer researcher Carlo Croce falls from grace: hypocrisy in science

Last week The New York Times published a front-page story entitled “Years of Ethics Charges but Star Cancer Researcher Gets a Pass“.  The article grossly disparages Prof. Carlo Croce, a towering figure in cancer biology and genetics, and his home institution, The Ohio State University. It describes in some detail multiple accusations of misconduct and malfeasance that have been targeting Croce for years.


Dr. Carlo M. Croce, Ohio State University

We are told that Croce has been dodging grave allegations that he falsified data in research supported by more than $86 million in federal grants that have been awarded to him. The investigative task of the Times reporters was greatly facilitated by the fact that the records at Ohio’s courthouses and its university system are completely open to the public. And Ohio State University, which claims it had spent more money supporting Dr. Croce’s research than it had received in grants, was apparently totally responsive to requests for records.

The big problem with all this is that to this day there is no hard evidence of misconduct implicating Croce. Ohio State had repeatedly investigated Croce and cleared him of wrongdoing every single time. How disinterested these investigations were is of course a matter of debate.

Since Dr. Carlo Croce has not been proven guilty of misconduct by the preponderance of evidence, the public does not have the right to know about these investigations and he must be presumed innocent. The integrity of Croce’s career should have been protected. The New York Times article is actionable in Court.

The most astonishing aspect of the story is that neither government agencies nor Ohio State believed Croce would be seriously investigated for misconduct, since he is one of Ohio State biggest rainmakers. This bespeaks of a system corrupt to the marrow and draws a lesson that epitomizes the level of hypocrisy that plagues the science establishment.

Of course we wonder who sent James Glanz, the Times reporter, the documents that appeared in Mr. Glanz’s email inbox, in what his collaborator Agustin Armendariz calls three big dumps. This is anyone’s guess. The Times story mentions Clare Francis, the pseudonym for an agent for the blog Retraction Watch, whose brash nauseating style is reminiscent of Ivan Oransky’s writing…

In any case, that would be discovered in Court if and when Dr. Carlo M. Croce decides to take legal action.

美国国立卫生研究院, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, John Ioannidis, National Institutes of Health, NIH, NIH funding, Peer Review, Principal Investigator, Research grant, Study Section

Peer Review: Is NIH Rewarding Talent?

In a striking analysis published in Nature, Stanford University researcher John Ioannidis, the expert on metadata investigation at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, has seriously questioned the way the National Institutes of Health fund research proposals. He and his colleague Joshua Nicholson have argued in what seems like a rousing condemnation of the status quo that peer-review, the process by which study sections review and rank research applications, is totally broken.  The researchers argued that peer review at NIH (简称) encourages “conformity, if not mediocrity”, favoring proposals submitted by people who know how to network and play the petty games of academic sociology, rather than those by people who have original and potentially influential ideas.

These conclusions rest heavily on the observation that only 40 percent of scientists with highly cited papers (say, those with more than 1000 citations) are principal investigators on NIH grants. That is, those scientists whose peers value their work most highly are often not receiving NIH support for that work.

Of course, the analysis may be imperfect. Here is my critique for one: Using high citation level as a proxy for originality is probably not entirely correct (but then what is a good proxy for originality?). It is also possible that a good percentage of these investigators have not even applied for NIH funding in the first place. And, finally, they may have other sources of support for their research, most likely, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (should we then conclude that HHMI funds more original research than NIH?).

It is perhaps true that the peer review system is broken. The majority of the authors of the most influential papers in medicine and the life sciences seem not to have NIH funding according to Ioannidis and Nicholson, and their funding rate is possibly less than average. Perhaps the most disturbing observation, the one that truly needs the closest scrutiny, is that study section members are almost always funded while their citation impact is typically low or average: they are not the high-impact innovators.

This leaves us with a sad reflection. Probably a truly innovative idea cannot be appreciated by the peers, while if peers can readily grasp it (to the level they are willing to fund it), it is probably not innovative.

NIH is seemingly aware of this problem and has earnestly tried to address these concerns introducing specific award categories such as the Pioneer and New Innovator Awards. Perhaps Ioannidis and Nicholson may be willing to evaluate the efficacy of these categories in capturing true talent.