Misconduct Case Studies Print E-mail
The following are clear examples of misconduct. We place them here to demonstrate that misconduct happens in one's own house (the Thomas and Contreas case) and to demonstrate the severity to which misconduct can occur (the Wakefield case).

Thomas and Contreas Case

Judith M. Thomas and Dr. Juan R. Contreras, both former UAB researchers, studied the efficacy of anti-rejection drugs in kidney transplants utilizing rhesus monkeys. The primary goal of their research was aimed at determining the ability to wean organ transplant patients off anti-rejection drugs most patients are required to take for the remainder of their lives. Thomas and Contreas reported the removal of both kidneys from test subjects while implanting one transplant kidney. However, only one kidney was removed while implanting the donor organ. Furthermore, Thomas and Contreas failed to report the administration of other drugs while also misrepresenting dosage levels of those drugs. These falsified claims were published in 15 publications in the years between 1998 and 2005 with at least 7 publications being fully retracted.

Andrew Wakefield Case

Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of serious research misconduct by the United Kingdom's General Medical Council. Wakefield was exploring a possible link between the measles-mumps, rubella vaccine and autism. Wakefield had already attempted and failed to establish a link between the measles's virus, the measles's vaccine and Crohn's disease (Siva 2010). The General Medical Council's investigation into Wakefield's misconduct span two and a half years; the longest in their history. They found that Wakefield failed to acquire informed consent from the parents of some test subjects and failed to acquire assent from the subjects themselves. The children were paid £5 each. Those subjects were attendees at his son's fifth birthday party at Wakefield's private residence. Wakefield failed to acquire UK's equivalent to IRB approval for conducting the study. Wakefield was also found guilty of data falsification/fabrication. The General Medical Council revoked Wakefield's professional license to practice as a physician. At the time, Wakefield was working as a gastroenterologist at London's Royal Free Hospital. Wakefield was found guilty of 30 charges (Triggle 2010).


Other cases for consideration:

The Unofficial Drug Study
Dr. Felpert has developed an experimental anti-coagulant drug, AstraZeneca, aimed at reducing the risks of post-operative strokes or cardiac arrests following cardiac surgeries. He is conducting a study with IRB approval for its use. AstraZeneca currently does not have FDA approval. Potential participants are allowed to select between AstraZeneca, Plavix, or Coumadin. Only subjects who agree to AstraZeneca will be enrolled in the study. The study is aimed primarily at risk factors and side effects, efficacy against the competitors. Dr. Felpert wants to track AstraZeneca's efficacy against Plavix and Coumidin. He begins collecting data from his clinical practice where he prescribes both as part of routine clinical practice. No patient who receives Coumadin or Plavix are aware that Dr. Felpert is collecting data about their health for these purposes. Dr. Felpert does not track identifying information.