{"id":19149,"date":"2012-02-03T17:00:14","date_gmt":"2012-02-03T22:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=19149"},"modified":"2012-02-03T22:02:47","modified_gmt":"2012-02-04T03:02:47","slug":"why-not-now","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/02\/03\/why-not-now\/","title":{"rendered":"why not now?…"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
U. will not support Keller retraction<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>
by Sahil Luthra
February 3, 2012
 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The University will not support an effort to retract a controversial study co-authored by Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior Martin Keller, wrote Edward Wing, dean of medicine and biological sciences, in a recent letter to the global nonprofit Healthy Skepticism. The study — commonly referred to as Study 329 — identified the drug Paxil as an effective combatant of adolescent depression. Since its publication in 2001, the study has raised concerns due to findings that link Paxil to higher rates of suicidal tendencies.
 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\tCiting claims that Keller’s study intentionally misrepresented the effectiveness of Paxil by suppressing data, Healthy Skepticism asked the University to write to the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and request a retraction of the findings, The Herald reported in November. Jon Jureidini, a co-author of the Healthy Skepticism letters and a professor at the University of Adelaide in Australia, received Wing’s most recent reply on Monday. In an email to The Herald, Jureidini wrote that Healthy Skepticism would not be discouraged by the University’s response, though he added he was unsure how the group would proceed. "One hopes that universities are leaders in moral and scientific integrity, but how can they expect students to acquire such values when their behavior directly contradicts their stated policies?" wrote Healthy Skepticism co-author Leemon McHenry in an email to The Herald. McHenry is also a researcher, lecturer and part-time professor at California State University in Northridge…<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

I find this profoundly disappointing. Study 329<\/font><\/strong> is, in and of itself, pretty horrid in its scope, but has further come to be a symbol of academic integrity even beyond its obvious implications in the medical\/psychiatric literature – because it is a lie. We all know it is a lie. I wonder if Dean Edward Wing has actually read it, and read the back story as it has emerged – about the ghost-writing, the data manipulation, the money changing hands. One has to ask, how is it to Brown University’s advantage to continue to leave this study "on the books," an embarassment to its students, professors, and Brown’s reputation in perpetuity<\/em>? There will come a day when Study 329<\/font><\/strong> will be retracted. Why not now? There are no extenuating circumstances for a lie, as this earlier student editorial makes very clear…<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Accountable academics<\/font><\/strong><\/u><\/a>
September 24, 2008
 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

As students at Brown, we have grown accustomed to having professors and peers illumine our lives with insight and understanding. From the classroom to the gym and from the Ratty to the Main Green, we have all grown intellectually through our interactions with other members of the Brown community. Given the importance of this interaction, we expect professors to enrich our understanding with academic insight supported by unimpeachable scholarship. And we anticipate that our peers will be academically responsible as well. <\/p>\n

Consequently, it’s troubling to learn that Martin Keller, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior, has been accused of suppressing the link between the antidepressant Paxil and suicidal tendencies among adolescents in a drug study. Moreover, the fact that Keller may have taken money from GlaxoSmithKline, Paxil’s maker, without disclosing the amount is problematic to the Brown community and to the country more generally. While we do not pre-judge the allegations against Keller, we do believe that his actions directly affect the integrity of the University. <\/p>\n

What we do and who we are as a university is predicated upon an implied social contract of intellectual trust and personal reliability. As students, we expect our professors to act with integrity just as our professors demand that of us. And the obligations we owe to each other extend beyond Brown to the community at large. It is a troubling reality for students to realize that the work of their professors, let alone their peers, may lack integrity. After all, we understandably want our academic experience at Brown to enrich us. So students reject the prospect of anything that might undermine that experience. And they demand the bona fides of the information shared in lectures, seminars and even day-to-day conversation. Indeed, they recognize that the credibility of this information is the currency that underlies all the intellectual exchanges we make. <\/p>\n

However, as we consider the broader implications of the Keller allegations, we do think it is important to remember that professors are accountable for the honesty of their intellectual work and discourse as well. We suggest an edit to our academic code. The Academic Code as presented on the University’s Web site, states that in the case of "Misrepresentations of facts, significant omissions, or falsifications in any connection with the academic process … students are penalized accordingly." This code should be applied to both professors and students. For insofar as the Brown community is fostered by a direct dialogue between students and faculty, a demand for academic integrity should be imposed on all members of the University.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

U. will not support Keller retraction by Sahil Luthra February 3, 2012   The University will not support an effort to retract a controversial study co-authored by Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior Martin Keller, wrote Edward Wing, dean of medicine and biological sciences, in a recent letter to the global nonprofit Healthy Skepticism. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19149"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19149\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19164,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19149\/revisions\/19164"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}