I’m no researcher, and you’re right, if I did want to improve upon my study, I would, given the materials. However, I am not that affluent, I do not have such opportunities unless the research was based on coatings and adhesives (these materials I do have access to). The retraction I linked was merely presented on retraction watch as an example. An example for what? Let’s continue to...
Have you thought about what those intentions are?
My understanding is that as a public company your primary concern is bringing in enough value to the company to appease investors. A subset of that goal would be to get FDA approved.
I don’t trust the company because of the incentive system, and that is my gut reaction that stems from companies getting away with unscrupulous business practices in the past. Though now that I think about it, however, Pfizer would have nothing to gain from retracting papers they knew they couldn’t back up if someone asked them to. My guess is that either:
a) Min-Jean’s managers were planning on gambling with her research only to find out their moles in the FDA wouldn’t cooperate or,
b) there was no conspiracy, and Min-Jean was incentivized to fabricate her work on her own volition.
I do see your point, since a) is a more complicated theory in this case. But I distrust the situation. I smell a power play, at worst. But I can’t support that, unfortunately, from the articles alone. I can support power plays happening in big companies, but I can’t show those situations are related here. Not yet, anyway…
EDIT: With all that said, you seem to err on the side of trusting the FDA to do their job and trusting Pfizer to comply. Would you be able to back up that trust in this case alone?
I think waveman made my point clearer in that I don’t like the fact that I don’t know the details of the investigation. Down to the painfully detailed process of verifying image duplication. I’m not so sure a quick phone call to Pfizer or Min-Jean would help me either...
I’m no researcher, and you’re right, if I did want to improve upon my study, I would, given the materials. However, I am not that affluent, I do not have such opportunities unless the research was based on coatings and adhesives (these materials I do have access to). The retraction I linked was merely presented on retraction watch as an example. An example for what? Let’s continue to...
My understanding is that as a public company your primary concern is bringing in enough value to the company to appease investors. A subset of that goal would be to get FDA approved.
I don’t trust the company because of the incentive system, and that is my gut reaction that stems from companies getting away with unscrupulous business practices in the past. Though now that I think about it, however, Pfizer would have nothing to gain from retracting papers they knew they couldn’t back up if someone asked them to. My guess is that either:
a) Min-Jean’s managers were planning on gambling with her research only to find out their moles in the FDA wouldn’t cooperate or,
b) there was no conspiracy, and Min-Jean was incentivized to fabricate her work on her own volition.
I do see your point, since a) is a more complicated theory in this case. But I distrust the situation. I smell a power play, at worst. But I can’t support that, unfortunately, from the articles alone. I can support power plays happening in big companies, but I can’t show those situations are related here. Not yet, anyway…
EDIT: With all that said, you seem to err on the side of trusting the FDA to do their job and trusting Pfizer to comply. Would you be able to back up that trust in this case alone?
I think waveman made my point clearer in that I don’t like the fact that I don’t know the details of the investigation. Down to the painfully detailed process of verifying image duplication. I’m not so sure a quick phone call to Pfizer or Min-Jean would help me either...