tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post7878571859670361626..comments2024-03-28T04:04:55.806-07:00Comments on Faculty of Language: How not to behaveNorberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-16299707796013687152020-03-11T02:59:29.509-07:002020-03-11T02:59:29.509-07:00This course aims to help improve awareness and res...This course aims to help improve awareness and responsibility around establishing and maintaining professional probity & ethics course.<a href="https://professionalboundaries.org.uk/maintaining-professional-ethics/" rel="nofollow"> probity course </a>greatseohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12981638499307604123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-37974359918637826512017-11-26T19:29:16.127-08:002017-11-26T19:29:16.127-08:00Dr. Braun's precarious negligence of standard ...Dr. Braun's precarious negligence of standard safety precautions was as open a secret at NIH as Harvey Weinstein's abusive conduct was in Hollywood. I personally witnessed Dr. Braun slam his office door in the face of a new neurologically intact control subject during her admission to the NIH Clinical Center, a requirement for participation in any study conducted there. (She was a Research Assistant at the Department of Linguistics of the University of Maryland who volunteered for ongoing fMRI studies in Dr. Braun's lab.) Then he documented in her chart that he had conducted a full exam during her admission. Hers was not an isolated example. And the safety regulations could not have been more clear: As the Physician ordering her MRI exam, it was *his* responsibility to follow protocol. False documentation is FRAUD, unambiguously. Nothing nugatory about fraudulent medical documentation. And the advancement of cognitive neuroscience never, ever takes precedence over patient safety, even if those patients are neurologically intact control subjects. Those of us researchers with clinical credentials appreciate that adherence to standard safety protocols-- no matter how cumbersome-- is always in the best interest of patients and clinicians alike. Indeed, it is the only ethical approach to clinical research. <br />Even if you do not have clinical credentials (I am assuming that you do not, but please correct me if I am mistaken), you must ask yourself this question: Shouldn't the highest standards of safety be upheld at the NIH Clinical Center? <br />During my post-doctoral fellowship in Dr. Braun's lab from 2004 to 2007, I had not yet earned clinical certification. (I have it now.) Nonetheless, I became so frightened by the negligence that I witnessed-- including a heart-stopping close-call with a stroke patient with severe nonfluent aphasia who had not revealed the implantation of an artificial heart valve until 5 minutes before his scheduled MRI exam-- that I expressed my concerns to the authorities within NIDCD (some of them mentioned in the mainstream articles about Dr. Braun's case). To their credit, they validated my concerns and acted by implementing an extra layer of security in the form of oversight by a well-respected and seasoned Nurse at NIDCD. Though this new oversight may have been effective when it was first implemented in 2007, it may not have prevented a return to the well-known pattern of carelessness in that lab.<br />So pervasive were the senses of fear and outrage among the members of Dr. Braun's lab, that I witnessed a mass exodus from it in 2005 and 2006. Contemplate this fact: Rising star scholars with fellowships and even permanent government status (job security with full benefits for life!) exited that lab prior to the completion of their contracts. Where was the outcry about all of the squandered data and ruined research careers then? Anyone attempting to dismiss my objections to this manufactured narrative of an innocent scientist victimized by his bullying bosses must contend with this fact: I am in very good and extensive company in feeling some relief that this chronic malpractice can never re-occur. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04998428424518813275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-51511016788940824262017-06-09T19:14:29.488-07:002017-06-09T19:14:29.488-07:00The shift to concern over stat malpractice is newi...The shift to concern over stat malpractice is newish. The first round was over fraud. It took lots of work to refocus the discussion on the more serious stuff, i.e. misunderstanding of stats and misapplication of the technology. So, we started with the hysteria and over on to more serious concerns. My hunch is that the widespread worry over fraud, which IMO was always rather minor, has desensitized us to this (the scientific analogue of voter fraud) and has allowed it to be used by the powers that be.Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15701059232144474269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5275657281509261156.post-48173813526527726262017-06-09T18:23:36.440-07:002017-06-09T18:23:36.440-07:00Where's the hysteria over fraud? I've seen...Where's the <i>hysteria</i> over fraud? I've seen concern about fraud, and I've seen a lot <i>more</i> concern about methodological and statistical malpractice. Unfortunately, concern about both has been appropriate all too often, since there have been some high profile cases of actual fraud, and methodological and statistical malpractice is distressingly widespread.<br /><br />It seems like a rather strenuous stretch to pin any responsibility for what the NIH is doing here on people who are vocally concerned about scientific fraud.Noah Motionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00150446498549219747noreply@blogger.com