Corrupt Science IV
May. 26th, 2008 06:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bardiphoukaOne of the problems with discovering corrupt procedures etc is that the person uncovering the fraud is often the one who is taken to punishment first.
Let us take for example the case of Sprague and Bruening..two psychologists working together on examining the effect of neuroleptic drugs. While Sprague at first had a great deal of respect for Bruening, he soom began to question his results,esp when he had moved on to another institution.
Even though Bruening admitted to the fraud,the University refused to examine any of the work he had done while there. And the National Institute of Mental Health started an investigation, not of Bruening but of Sprague. His federal funding was cut off.
Sprague eventually testified about the case at a Congressional Subcommittee hearing. The University's response was to threaten a libel suit. Only pressure from the Chair of the Subcommittee led them to a slight apology. But by then of course the damage to his reputations was done.
Let us take for example the case of Sprague and Bruening..two psychologists working together on examining the effect of neuroleptic drugs. While Sprague at first had a great deal of respect for Bruening, he soom began to question his results,esp when he had moved on to another institution.
Even though Bruening admitted to the fraud,the University refused to examine any of the work he had done while there. And the National Institute of Mental Health started an investigation, not of Bruening but of Sprague. His federal funding was cut off.
Sprague eventually testified about the case at a Congressional Subcommittee hearing. The University's response was to threaten a libel suit. Only pressure from the Chair of the Subcommittee led them to a slight apology. But by then of course the damage to his reputations was done.
