Quality Control
The case against peer review.
By Daniel EngberPosted Tuesday, April 5, 2005, at 2:03 PM ET
The recent announcement of a newly-discovered, arsenic-based life form has come under fire from microbiologists, who say the research paper is fatally flawed. So far, the paper's authors have refused to respond to the criticism, on the grounds that "any discourse will have to be peer-reviewed in the same manner as our paper was, and go through a vetting process so that all discussion is properly moderated." That is to say, they won't acknowledge the informal vetting provided by their colleagues on science blogs and in the press. In the following column, first published in 2005, Daniel Engber explains why formal peer review doesn't always work.
Facebook
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUponCLOSE
In September 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine weighed in on the healing power of God. A Columbia University research group reported that patients at a fertility clinic in Seoul were twice as likely to get pregnant when Christians prayed for them. Within a month, the study was in the New York Times science section and on Good Morning America, where the medical editor for ABC News called it "very well done" and opined that "getting pregnant involves a lot of biological, psychological, maybe even spiritual factors that we don't yet understand."
Related in Slate In December, Amanda Schaffer discussed Paul Ginsparg's digital archive in a piece about science publication.
The prayer study has since fallen from grace. Scientists around the world wrote angry letters to the journal attacking the methodology, and the research-protections office of the Department of Health and Human Services looked into whether the subjects had properly given consent. Last year, the study's senior author removed his name from the paper, saying that he hadn't directly participated in the research. The real lead author will not discuss the work, and the third authorâ€"a parapsychologist, lawyer, and convicted con manâ€"is now serving time in a federal prison (for an unrelated charge of fraud).
Advertisement
.prWrap,.prWrap DIV,.prWrap TABLE,.prWrap TABLE TBODY,.prWrap TABLE TR,.prWrap TABLE TD,.prWrap IMG{margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;padding:0px 0px 0px 0px;border:0px 0px 0px 0px;overflow:visible;direction:ltr;background:none;background-color:transparent;}
','300','250','1','1',1416658,721394,'0','326');" onmouseout="if(typeof(prRoll)=='function')prBExit(event);" shape=RECT coords=0,0,300,250 href="#"
Why did this quackery get so far before being exposed? The prayer study seemed legitimate because it appeared in the pages of a "peer-reviewed" medical journal. That means the paper was vetted by an independent panel of experts in the field.
Peer review is the gold standard of modern science. For medical researchers and other scientists, it's the gateway to funding, publication, and career advancement. When they apply for government grants from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, their proposals are reviewed by a panel of their colleagues. When they submit their completed work for publication, journals and university presses ask for the opinions of others in the field. And when they apply for jobs or tenure, scientists are judged largely on the basis of their peer-reviewed publications.
Scientists give peer review so much authority because they view it as a part of the grand tradition of scientific inquiryâ€"an extension, even, of the formal experimental method. Peer evaluation is the endpoint of a cautious progression from theories and predictions to experiments and results. The system dates from the 1700s, when the Royal Society of London set up a "Committee on Papers" with the power to solicit expert opinions. It became the standard for scientific publication only after World War II, when the dramatic expansion of scientific research swamped journal editors and made them look to outsiders for help. Ever since, scientists have claimed that peer review filters out lousy papers, faulty experiments, and irrelevant findings. They say it improves the quality of an accepted paper by providing helpful comments for revision. And they can't imagine a better way to accomplish these goals.
So, what explains the Columbia prayer study? Journal editors will tell you that peer review is not designed to detect fraudâ€"clever misinformation will sail right through no matter how scrupulous the reviews. But the prayer study wasn't a clever fraud. It was sprinkled with suspect elements, not the least of which was a set of results that violated known laws of science. The authors also used a needlessly convoluted experimental design; these and other red flags in the study have been cataloged on the Web by obstetrician and enthusiastic debunker Bruce Flamm. Even on its own terms, then, as a filter for lousy papers and bad experiments, peer review of the Columbia prayer study was a spectacular failure. Here's the problem: Despite its authority and influence over every aspect of the scientific community, no one has ever shown that peer review accomplishes anything at all.
In 1986, a deputy editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association named Drummond Rennie announced the first scholarly conference on peer review. A series of high-profile cases of scientific fraud had hit the medical journals in the early '80s, and lousy papers were making their way into print on a regular basis. Editors like Rennie were in the mood for critical self-examination.
If peer review didn't work, it was an extraordinary waste of time. Rennie proposed to study whether the system, with all its shortcomings, actually improved the quality of published research. He didn't invent the ideaâ€"another medical editor, Steven Locke, had just published a book that asked the same questionâ€"but he nurtured and led the small group of maverick medical editors who were ready to challenge the status quo. In 1986, when Rennie announced the First International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, there were only a handful of (peer-reviewed) papers on the topic; now there are several hundred and Rennie's congress convenes every four years. A cartoon in a special issue of JAMA devoted to the group's 2001 meeting in Barcelona shows the white-bearded Rennie dressed like Moses, leading his fellow scientists and editors through the desert of Sinai.
Rennie and his companions have spent almost 20 years in the desert, yet the golden calf is still intact. The study of peer review turns out to be tremendously difficult. To test whether it works, you'd need to compare the quality of papers that had gone through peer review with the quality of those that hadn't. But how would you get papers for the control group, given all the professional benefits that come with peer review? And assuming you could convince scientists to forgo the process, how could you objectively judge the quality of the papers? At Rennie's fifth congress this year in Chicago, several hundred studies will be presented, but no one will claim to have answered the big question: Does peer review work?
In the meantime, the system is threatening to collapse under its own weight (click here for more about how). What's the fix? Rennie's gang has produced a few tantalizing bits of data. One set of studies shows that revealing the identities of reviewers has no effect on the quality of their efforts, contradicting the standard argument that anonymity fosters rigorous criticism and high standards. In response to findings like these, some journals, like the British Medical Journal, have switched to "open review," telling authors who has reviewed their papers.
More sweeping changes have also been suggested. Well-trained, full-time editors and professional statisticians might be able to perform the functions of peer review on their own. Or scientists en masse might be recruited: Paul Ginsparg, who runs a digital archive for unpublished physics papers, has suggested that putting "preprints" of scientific papers on the Web could let the community as a whole decide which papers are most useful. Unpublished work could be tracked by an objective measureâ€"like how often it's cited or downloadedâ€"and then passed along for formal publication. Government funders like the NIH could hire professional reviewers to evaluate grants, or they could replace grants with cash prizes for successful research.
When journal editors are asked about these ideas, they often quote Winston Churchill's line, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Or rather, they quote other journal editors quoting that line. But it's a poor analogy, since few alternatives to peer review have been tried in modern times. And democracy isn't really a good description of peer review, either. Sure, peer review allows scientists to participate in a system of self-governance. But wouldn't BMJ's policy of open review or Ginsparg's proposal for Web-published preprints be far more democratic?
So far, though, the Churchill quoters are winning. A good study of peer review will take more than a small band of outsiders working part time with little money. We need a coordinated effort by scientific journals, funding agencies, and research scientists. It wouldn't be that expensive. But the funds have not been forthcoming. Instead, the federal government recently proposed using peer review "to improve the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information" that it gives to the public for things like FDA drug requirements and HHS dietary guidelines. Ironically, most scientists hated the idea when it was first presented; the original version of the proposal stated that only researchers from private industry, who don't receive federal funding, would get to participate. (That provision has since been eliminated.*) But forget arguing over the details of peer review. Let's first figure out whether it works.
Correction, April 8, 2005:
The original version of this column missated a provision of the federal government's proposal on peer review. The revised version of the proposal would allow federally funded scientists to participate. The Columbia University 'Miracle' StoryA Story of Possible Fraud in the Medical Literature and a Medical Journal and Medical School Responding Poorly
Dr. Bruce Flamm (clinical professor of OB/Gyn at Univ. of California) has been of key importance in making this story known and analyzing the potential lessons to be learned. (
click here for lessons learned)------------------------------------------------------
The bizarre story of this study is as follows:
***A good rule of thumb for a medical journal is that anyone who uses the names of dead children in order to fraudulently obtain bank loans, jobs, and passports, is not a reliable source of data.***
A study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine in 2001, which if true, was a landmark study. The study reported that women undergoing in vitro fertilization in Korea who were prayed for by individuals in Australia, Canada, and the United States conceived at twice the rate as those patients that did not receive prayer. The prayer groups were reportedly organized predominantly by one of the authors, presumably by the currently imprisoned lawyer, Daniel Wirth. None of the patients who were prayed for were told they were in a study or that they were being prayed for by other people. No informed consent was obtained.
The prayer group was said to have a remarkable increase in the rate of achieving a successful pregnancy- 50% in the prayer group (44/88) vs. 26% in the no prayer group (21/81, P=.0013). If legitimate, this would have been an historic publication. In reality, history will record this publication as a classic example of flawed and possibly fraudulent medical research.
The lead author, whose name was eventually withdrawn from the study, was Dr. Rogerio Lobo. Dr. Lobo was the chairman of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department at Columbia University in New York at the time. He was also on the editorial board of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, the same medical journal that published this study.
The other two authors were Daniel Wirth, a lawyer, and Dr. Kwang Cha. Dr. Cha was director of the Cha Columbia Infertility Center at the time of the 'miracle' study but appears to have ended his relationship with Columbia University shortly after the study was published.
Daniel Wirth is a lawyer without a medical degree but with a degree in parapsychology (a field dealing with ESP and other unproven phenomena). Mr. Wirth had previously written a number of articles published in parapsychology journals claiming to document paranormal phenomena and faith healing. (Only later would Daniel Wirth be imprisoned after being convicted of unrelated fraud charges which included the use of the names of dead people for illegal financial gain.)
Dr. Bruce Flamm, who is a clinical professor of OB/Gyn at University of California at Irvine, wrote several letters to the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. He questioned the complex design of the trial. He also asked for the name to be released of the supposed independent statistician who was said to have been an outside source helping to guarantee the integrity of the data. Dr. Flamm, in addition, suggested the possibility of fabrication. Dr. Flamm’s subsequent phone calls to the journal were not answered nor were his letters published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. Other individuals also wrote letters to the journal questioning the study's methodology and results. None of these letters were published, as would have been appropriate near the time of publication of this presumably landmark trial.
Dr. Flamm went on to write a critique of the study in the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine in 2002. Other authors subsequently contacted Dr. Flamm about multiple independent inquiries into other questionable work by Daniel Wirth, the lawyer without a medical degree.
In the meantime, the lack of informed consent resulted in an investigation of Columbia University (Dr. Lobo’s institution) by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS). Dr. Lobo was listed as the lead author on the paper, as well as being identified by a Columbia University press release as having led the study. However, Thomas Morris, Columbia University Vice President, responded to the DHSS investigation that Dr. Lobo had first learned of the study from Dr. Cha six to twelve months after the study had been completed and had primarily provided editorial review and assistance with publication. Dr. Lobo would later withdraw his name from the study ostensibly because of this limited relationship to the study.
When the scandal surrounding the 'miracle' study became public in mid 2004, Columbia University, which is a highly respected institution, began an investigation. However, the investigation was apparently halted when Dr. Lobo formally removed his name from the study. Details of this investigation were not made public. The lack of public reporting of the details of their investigation of this study could be viewed as shirking of responsibility by Columbia University. This trial would not have received the same credence without the association of the study with Dr. Lobo and Columbia University. Columbia University had even initially issued a press release claiming that the study had several safeguards in place to eliminate bias and that the study was carefully designed to eliminate bias.
Both physicians listed as authors at the time of publication of this study were Columbia University physicians. Without these two physicians associated with Columbia University, the only author remaining was a lawyer without a medical degree with a history of prior publications on mysterious phenomena and faith healing. Any journal even considering publication would have demanded more documentation of the integrity and factual nature of the data presented. Columbia University’s response after problems with this study have become apparent has been clearly insufficient.
In addition, the actions of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (JRM) have been indefensible for a medical journal. Prior to publication, their peer-review system failed to detect a flawed study. After publication, the journal had to be aware of the considerable controversy that this article provoked. The journal did not publish any letter to the editor or viewpoint criticizing this study even when they temporarily withdrew the paper from their website. (The journal withdrew the paper following the May 2004 publication in the London Observer of “Exposed: Conman’s Role in Prayer-power IVF “Miracleâ€.) In November 2004, they put the study back on their web site, reportedly telling the press that they stood by the report. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine at the same time published a defense of the article by the sole remaining unincarcerated author of the study, Dr. Cha.
Dr. Cha noted that his defense of the article was written as a “reply… to correspondence we received.†Almost unbelievably for a medical journal, the rebuttal by Cha was printed by the Journal of Reproductive Medicine without that journal ever previously or concurrently publishing any letters or commentary they received regarding criticism and limitations of this study.
After continued criticism in the national news media, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine belatedly published a letter from Dr. Flamm in their January 2005 issue. This was more than 3 years after the initial publication of the 'miracle' study. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine still refused to retract study. The study was still being cited despite its highly suspect nature.
Kwang Cha was the only remaining un-incarcerated author of the 2001 study. However, more recently, Dr. Cha has been charged with plagiarism of a study he published in 2005.
The study was initially published in Korea. Dr.Cha published it in the United States. Dr. Cha apparently perjured himself by signing papers that this research had not been published previously. In addition, the lead author of the paper when it was originally published in Korea was not credited in the United States journal publication as even having participated in the research.http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/52859/ )
After months of investigation the editor of Fertility and Sterility (the United States journal) concluded that Cha's 2005 paper was essentially a word-for-word copy of a paper that had previously been published by a different lead author in a Korean medical journal.
All three authors of the "miracle" study have now been discredited. Only one question remains. Will the Journal of Reproductive Medicine finally retract the absurd Cha/Wirth/Lobo publication?
What should now be done?
Columbia University should reopen an inquiry into the publication of this article and make public the information gathered from their previous inquiry. Without the Columbia University connection, this paper would not have been published in a similar fashion or received the undeserved credence that connection conferred. The paper is now back in the public domain on the Journal of Reproductive Medicine’s internet site and would never have been there in the first place without the Columbia University connection. Columbia University shares responsibility for this flawed and possibly fraudulent study being in the public domain.
The Journal of Reproductive Medicine also has a major responsibility in rectifying this situation. The article should be retracted from the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine would be well served by establishing an independent panel to review their own journal’s handling of this matter by impartial and respected medical experts.
What follows the above synopsis of the Columbia 'Miracle Study are comments by Dr. Bruce Flamm on the multiple valuable lessons to be learned from this unusual sequence of events.
Columbia 'Miracle' Study "print format"download pdf format
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Columbia "Miracle" Study
A plethora of lessons about medical research, evidence-based medicine, and the peer-review system.
by Bruce L. Flamm, MD, Clinical Professor
Obstetrics & Gynecology
University of California, Irvine
Lessons from Columbia "Miracle" Study
download (pdf format) "print format"
| A study led by Columbia University Medical School faculty appeared to demonstrate miraculous results. In reality, this seemingly impeccable study demonstrates a wide variety of research flaws and peer-review errors. One of the three authors is now serving five years in Federal prison for criminal fraud, another has formally removed his name from the study, and the final author refuses to respond to questions about the scandal. |
The Cha/Wirth/Lobo study claimed to demonstrate, using meticulous scientific methodology, that supernatural or paranormal phenomena actually exist. (1) These mysterious phenomena apparently caused a 100% increase in the success rate of complex infertility treatments. How did a bizarre study claiming extraordinarily unlikely and apparently supernatural results end up in a peer-reviewed medical journal?
The following are some of the many important lessons that can be learned from this incredible research saga:
1. Always be suspicious of outrageous claims. The Columbia 'miracle' study is an excellent example of what Dr. C.N. Reckens, chairman of the Dutch Union Against Quackery calls a, “seemingly impeccable paper proving absurd claims.†(2) A related phrase cherished by most scientists is, “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.†Thus, the first lesson this paper teaches us is that we should be highly suspicious of studies that appear to show astonishing results. Of course, every once in a while someone will discover something that is truly astonishing! Nevertheless, such results wave a red flag indicating extreme caution should be taken as the study is reviewed.
2. One red flag should prompt a search for others. The extraordinary claims of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study should have prompted reviewers to look for other red flags. In this case the peer review system completely failed. For example, an obvious red flag was that one of the authors, Daniel Wirth, had no medical degree but rather a degree in para-psychology, a dubious field that deals with ghosts and supposed psychic phenomena. A five-minute Google search of this author yields dozens of red flags that researchers at Columbia University as well as the peer-reviewers and editors at the Journal of Reproductive Medicine obviously missed. (3) If anyone had taken a moment to look, they would have found that Mr. Wirth had already published many papers claiming bizarre healing phenomena in paranormal magazines and alternative medicine journals.
3. An overly complex study design is a red flag. The Cha/Wirth/Lobo study involved a complex and convoluted study design involving various groups, levels, and tiers of overlapping and intertwining intervention groups. Multiple glaring red flags in the Cha/Wirth/Lobo manuscript should have caused reviewers to at least glance at prior publications by Daniel Wirth, the author with no medical credentials. This would have revealed a long pattern of similarly unusual study designs and bizarre healing methods. For example, one prior Wirth study involved only 15 patients yet evaluated some eight different interventions in various groups and combinations. (4) The strange study included LeShan “elevated state of consciousness†healers, Reiki “life force transferring†healers, Intercessory Prayer healers, Non-contact therapeutic touch “energy field altering†healers, Guided imagery, biofeedback, visualization and relaxation techniques. There were almost as many study interventions as study participants! For comparison, imagine a study with only 15 study patients that claimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of eight different investigational drugs!
4. Lack of informed consent is a red flag. The Cha/Wirth/Lobo study clearly states that patients undergoing treatment were not aware of the fact that they were being used as study subjects. This was a shocking revelation, particularly in light of current governmental laws governing research and strict HIPAA regulations. One would think that this would give reviewers a good reason to look very carefully at the study design and methodology. However, reviewers at Columbia University along with peer-reviewers and editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine were apparently not alarmed by this information.
5. Investigation of a study by the Federal Government is a red flag. The Columbia University press release announcing the publication of this study mentioned the fact that study patients did not know they were taking part in a study. This fact was subsequently mentioned in the New York Times in an article that caught the attention of the U.S. DHHS Office of Human Subjects Protection. This prompted a Federal investigation of Columbia University. Limited information about this investigation has been made public and can be viewed at the DHHS Internet site given below. During the investigation Columbia department chairman Dr. Rogerio Lobo, who had been listed in the Columbia University press release and the New York Times as the study's lead author, claimed to have not been involved with the study until 6 to 12 months after its completion. Three years later Dr. Lobo formally removed his name from the study. Concerns about a study that are sufficient to spark a Federal investigation should clearly have been sufficient to concern peer reviewers and editors. However this red flag that was ignored.
6. If the claimed results are not only astonishing but also defy the know laws of physics then we are faced with the reddest of all red flags. Before such a study is accepted for publication it would be wise to await replication by an independent research group. A fundamental rule of scientific research is that a valid study can always be replicated by other researchers. Conversely, if other research groups are not able to replicate a study then it is almost certain that the original results were not valid.
7. Letters to the Editor serve an important peer-review role. In some cases even the most cautious peer-reviewers and editors may miss important errors in a manuscript. Letters to the editor often correct such problems. In this case peer-reviewers and editors at the Journal of Reproductive Medicine missed an entire array of red flags. Worse yet, they undermined evidence-based medicine's system of checks and balances by refusing to publish even a single letter critical of the study. For three years letters from concerned physicians and scientists were completely ignored by the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The JRM editors' stonewalling serves as an excellent example of exactly how editors of medical journals should never behave. At the other end of the spectrum, the British Medical Journal publishes rapid responses from readers on their Internet site within 24 hours of their submission. Selected letters are then published in the paper version of the British Medical Journal. This open and public peer review system serves as an excellent example of how editors of medical journals should behave.
8. Studies claiming supernatural results may defeat peer-review systems. The Cha/Wirth/Lobo study involved spectacular outcomes apparently related to distant Christian prayers. Religion is a very sensitive subject and may create a serious 'blind spot' in evidence-based peer-review systems. Some journal peer-reviewers may be unable to function objectively when faced with religious claims. If psychic healers or fortune tellers had claimed to have doubled the success rate of infertility treatments by utilizing Taro cards or Ouija boards their manuscript would have been immediately rejected as utter nonsense by any legitimate medical journal. Yet, the apparently supernatural results of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study were accepted and published by a supposedly evidence-based peer-reviewed medical journal. Why?
9. Once a flawed medical study is published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, the damage has already been done. In the winter of 2001, newspapers and magazines around the world announced the astounding results of the Columbia 'miracle' study. By June of 2004, a Google search for the terms, “Wirth, Columbia, prayer†revealed more than 600 links, many to sites touting the supposedly miraculous results. For almost three years the public had no knowledge of the study's serious flaws. During those years the study was cited many times, even in peer-reviewed medical journals, as strong scientific evidence for the power of faith healing.
10. The peer-review system can continue to fail even when serious flaws and problems are made public. As of January, 2005, in spite of all the flaws and problems delineated above, Columbia University apparently stands by the 'miracle' study and has concluded its investigation of the matter. The publication was briefly removed from the Journal of Reproductive Medicine Internet site but has now been reinstated and can be viewed at the JRM Internet site at the link given below. Amazingly, after ignoring readers concerns about the study for three years, the JRM published a letter in the October 2004 issue in which co-author Kwang Cha was allowed to defend the bizarre study. However, as of January 2005, the editors of the JRM have refused to publish even a single letter critical of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study.
Internet Links for more information about the Columbia 'Miracle†study
Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine on-line articles:
http://www.sram.org/online-articles.htmlThe Complete Cha/Wirth/Lobo 'miracle' study:
http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/2001/2001Sep.htmSkeptical Inquirer
The Columbia University Miracle Study:Flawed and Fraud:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.htmlThe Federal Indictment of Daniel Wirth:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/wirthindictment.htmlTime Magazine July 2004:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,660053,00.htmlTime Magazine December 2004:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,982245,00.htmlChronicle of Higher Education June 2004:
http://chronicle.com/free/2004/06/2004060801n.htm
DHHS Investigation of Columbia University and Cha/Wirth/Lobo Study
http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/dec01f.pdf
References
1. Cha KY, Wirth DP, Lobo RA. Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer: Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial. Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2001;46:781â€"787
2. Renckens CN. Alternative treatments in reproductive medicine: Much ado about nothing. Human reproduction 2002;17:528-533
3. Flamm BL. Faith healing by prayer: Review of Cha, KY, Wirth, DP, Lobo, RA. Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. 2002; 6(1):47-50 Available on-line at the site listed above.
4. Complementary Healing Therapies. Wirth DP, Barrett, MA. International Journal of Psychosomatics. 1994:41;1-67.
5. Flamm BL. Faith Healing Confronts Modern Medicine. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. 2004; 8(1):9-14. Available on-line at the site listed above.
Update Feb 2007: Authors of Columbia "miracle" study shock the world again:
***A good rule of thumb for a medical journal is that anyone who uses the names of dead children in order to fraudulently obtain bank loans, jobs, and passports, is not a reliable source of data.***
Physicians and scientists who have been following the saga of the Columbia University "miracle" study may find this difficult to believe but one of the strangest stories in the history of medical research has just become even more bizarre.
Daniel Wirth, Kwang Cha, M.D., and Rogerio Lobo, M.D. were the authors of what appears to be a fraudulent study of a randomized trial of the effects of prayer on fertility rates which was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. Since that publication, one author has been imprisoned for fraud of another type, the second author has been found guilty of plagiarism by another medical journal, and Dr. Lobo has withdrawn his name from the study. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine has refused to date to retract this study and this fraudulent study is still being cited. This web page describes this unbelievable and unfortunate situation.Co-author Daniel Wirth was sentenced to five years in federal prison for criminal fraud. Although Wirth was the man who designed and allegedly conducted the "miracle" study, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine refused to retract the Cha/Wirth/Lobo article. Then, co-author Rogerio Lobo admitted that he learned of the study only after it was completed and thus could not even verify that the research had ever been conducted. In 2004 Lobo removed his name from the publication.
Mysteriously, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine still refused to retract it. Kwang Cha, the only remaining un-incarcerated author of the 2001 study stood by the miraculous results and claimed that the research was legitimate. However, in February 2007, Dr. Cha was charged with plagiarism of a study he published in 2005.
After months of investigation the editor of Fertility and sterility concluded that Cha's 2005 paper was a word-for-word copy of a paper that had previously been published by another author in a Korean medical journal. All three authors of the "miracle" study have now been discredited. Only one question remains. Will the Journal of Reproductive Medicine finally retract the absurd Cha/Wirth/Lobo publication?
No comments:
Post a Comment