Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.

University Could Lose Millions From “Unethical” Research Backed by Peter Thiel

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 16 2017, @06:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the its-the-way-that-you-do-it dept.

Fnord666 writes:

Questionable herpes vaccine research backed by tech heavyweight Peter Thiel may have jeopardized $15 million in federal research funding to Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. That's according to documents obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request by The State Journal Register.

In August, Kaiser Health News reported that Thiel and other conservative investors had contributed $7 million for the live-but-weakened herpes virus vaccine, developed by the late SIU researcher William Halford. The investments came after Halford and his private company, Rational Vaccines, had begun conducting small clinical trials in the Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis. With the off-shore location, Rational Vaccines' trial skirted federal regulations and standard safety protocols for human trials, including having approval and oversight from an institutional review board (IRB).

Experts were quick to call the unapproved trial "patently unethical," and researchers rejected the data from publication, calling the handling of safety issues "reckless." The government of St. Kitts opened an investigation into the trial and reported that health authorities there had been kept in the dark.

Source: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/university-could-lose-millions-from-unethical-research-backed-by-peter-thiel/

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
University Could Lose Millions From “Unethical” Research Backed by Peter Thiel | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 77 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by sbgen on Thursday November 16 2017, @06:53PM (2 children)

    by sbgen (1302) on Thursday November 16 2017, @06:53PM (#597814)
    I was wondering about the rejection of the manuscript too, so I read the reasons given by the reviewers. It looks like the paper was primarily rejected for lack of data on whatever the authors were claiming. Take into account this before going off on a rage. The paper itself appears to have been invited by the journal; for them to rescind that invitation should show you how serious the lapses are. All this is *before* you indulge into ethical questions. Please see Runaway's comment for that.

    Here is the link to the reviewer's report, (PDF) <https://liveherpesvaccine.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/peer-review-of-halford-manuscript-dec-2016.pdf>
    --
    Warning: Not a computer expert, but got to use it. Yes, my kind does exist.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:12PM (1 child)

    by acid andy (1683) on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:12PM (#597827) Homepage Journal

    Sounds like a classic RTFA moment then.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?

    • (Score: 2) by sbgen on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:21PM

      by sbgen (1302) on Thursday November 16 2017, @07:21PM (#597838)

      To be fair to you, the link was within another link. Fortunately I do this all day :-)) Also, it is unlikely that a scientific paper will be flatly rejected *just* for ethics reason or for being of a particular political belief.

      --
      Warning: Not a computer expert, but got to use it. Yes, my kind does exist.