To Ivan Oransky, China’s paper-mill problem is best understood as an incentives story. “This is literally organized crime,” the Retraction Watch co-founder told BioWorld. “Follow the money. When there’s an opportunity to make money, they will find it, and if your whole career is based on how often you publish and what journals you publish in and how often you’re cited, it’s not surprising that leads to bad behavior.”
As China becomes a major source of global clinical trial evidence, the retraction of a high-profile China-led lung cancer study is raising questions about whether journals, regulators and drug developers have adequate systems to validate fast-moving clinical claims.
To Ivan Oransky, China’s paper-mill problem is best understood as an incentives story. “This is literally organized crime,” the Retraction Watch co-founder told BioWorld. “Follow the money. When there’s an opportunity to make money, they will find it, and if your whole career is based on how often you publish and what journals you publish in and how often you’re cited, it’s not surprising that leads to bad behavior.”
To Ivan Oransky, China’s paper-mill problem is best understood as an incentives story. “This is literally organized crime,” the Retraction Watch co-founder told BioWorld. “Follow the money. When there’s an opportunity to make money, they will find it, and if your whole career is based on how often you publish and what journals you publish in and how often you’re cited, it’s not surprising that leads to bad behavior.”
As China becomes a major source of global clinical trial evidence, the retraction of a high-profile China-led lung cancer study is raising questions about whether journals, regulators and drug developers have adequate systems to validate fast-moving clinical claims.
As China becomes a major source of global clinical trial evidence, the retraction of a high-profile China-led lung cancer study is raising questions about whether journals, regulators and drug developers have adequate systems to validate fast-moving clinical claims.
The Advanced Medical Technology Association has updated its code of ethics for interactions with health care professionals, which includes some much-needed updates that address both the burgeoning reliance on data and the increasing emphasis on the part of U.S. regulators on data security.
Drug and device sponsors conducting clinical trials in China to support U.S. FDA approval may want to reconsider their choice of trial sites, as trials conducted at hospitals and clinics affiliated with China’s military or in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region could be in for increased scrutiny.
Drug and device sponsors conducting clinical trials in China to support U.S. FDA approval may want to reconsider their choice of trial sites, as trials conducted at hospitals and clinics affiliated with China’s military or in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region could be in for increased scrutiny.
Does the NIH have the ability to screen for U.S. security issues in its award of research grants? That question is at the heart of an April 2 letter the Republican leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent to the Government Accountability Office in which it asked the government watchdog to examine the extent to which the NIH “adequately safeguards research funds from national security concerns related to the Chinese military or over the unethical use of human beings in research studies, especially from entities of concern in China.”
