Research Ethics/Article Retraction

Fitzpatrick, Michael. “The Cutter Incident: How America's First Polio Vaccine Led to a Growing Vaccine Crisis.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine vol. 99,3 (2006): 156.

Topics include: the Cutter Incident, Simian virus 40, Swine flu vaccine and Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Hepatitis B vaccine and Multiple Sclerosis, Rotavirus vaccine and intussusception, GBS and Meningococcal vaccine, Hib vaccine recall, H1N1 Influenza vaccine and narcolepsy, Porcine circovirus in rotavirus vaccines, and the HPV vaccine recall.

CNN, by Jen Christensen, 9/1/2020. Discusses the current development of COVID vaccines. Included here for information about the 1955 Cutter Incident.

1962 August 1. Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey was a pharmacologist who worked for the Food & Drug Administration; in her work she was instrumental in preventing the distribution in the United States of the sedative Thalidomide, which was responsible for severe birth defects in babies born in Europe. - United Press International telephoto. cph 3c31535 //hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c31535

"President John F. Kennedy calls for stronger drug laws and attacks the use of thalidomide, in Washington DC, United States of America (USA)." -- British Pathé, posted to YouTube 4/13/2014.

Helix, By: Bara Fintel, Athena T. Samaras, Edson Carias, Jul 28, 2009

Research ethics blog by Nancy Walton, P.D.

Science Museum (London England)

The Blade, Toledo, Ohio, Sun, Jun 30, 1968 (Google News)

Theconversation.com, December 7, 2015

Rehman, Waqas et al. “The rise, fall and subsequent triumph of thalidomide: lessons learned in drug development.” Therapeutic advances in hematology vol. 2,5 (2011): 291-308. doi:10.1177/2040620711413165

Thalomid (Thalidomide) Capsules, Company: Celgene Corp., Application No.: 020785, Approval Date: 07/16/1998. This drug comes with a warning that it can cause severe, life-threatening human birth defects

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service. Final Report of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Ad Hoc Advisory Panel. [Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office]. 1972. HE 20.2:T 87. Indiana University Bloomington, Digital Archive

McGill University, Office for Science and Society, Ada McVean, 1/25/2019

Brandt, Allan M. 1978. "Racism and research: The case of the Tuskegee Syphilis study." The Hastings Center Report 8(6): 21-29. Harvard Library Digital Access.

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Am J Public Health. 2013 December; 103(12): 2122–2126.
Published online 2013 December. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301520

Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues

Spector‐Bagdady, K. and Lombardo, P.A. (2019), U.S. Public Health Service STD Experiments in Guatemala (1946–1948) and Their Aftermath. Ethics & Human Research, 41: 29-34. doi:10.1002/eahr.500010

National Security Archive, George Washington University

This is a DOE Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, Office of Health and Safety Archived Website

Los Alamos Science, no. 23, 1995, William Moss and Roger Eckhardt

Atomic Heritage Foundation, 7/11/2017

United States Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health, February 1995

Los Alamos National Laboratory Research Library

Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, 12/31/1997

Gizmodo, Sarah Zhang, 6/3/2015

By Lorraine Boissoneault, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM, MARCH 8, 2017

University of New Mexico Research Guide

Mary Tudor, Master of Arts (MA); University of Iowa; 1939
DOI https://doi.org/10.17077/etd.9z9lxfgn
Also known as the "Monster Study"

BY JIM DYER, Mercury NewsPublished Sunday, June 10, 2001, in the San Jose Mercury News

BBC News, 8/17/2007

Franklin H. Silverman, J. Fluency Disord. 13 (1988), 225-231

New York Times Magazine, by Gretchen Reynolds, 4/16/2003

NBC News, updated 8/17/2007 8:43:33 PM ET

Psychology Today, David Hellerstein M.D., reviewed by Devon Frye, posted 5/16/2022

McArthur, D. (2009). Good Ethics Can Sometimes Mean Better Science: Research Ethics and the Milgram Experiments. Science & Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9083-4

In early 1961 a young Yale University psychologist conducted a series of experiments that revealed a shocking truth to the world: ordinary people would do extraordinary acts of harm if ordered to do them by someone in authority. And for the following 40 years the standard interpretation of Stanley Milgram's research was that it clearly demonstrated unquestioning "obedience to authority". More-recently, however, researchers such as Haslam and Reicher have questioned this idea. In this film, using a range of data from the original study, they take us "beyond Milgram" to explore a very different interpretation of his research - one that focuses as much on disobedience as obedience.

Le Texier, T. (2019). Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 74(7), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000401

Medium.com, Ben Blum 6/7/2018

Griggs, R. A., & Bartels, J. M. (2019). Teaching scientific thinking using recent archival revelations about the Stanford Prison Experiment. Psychology Teaching Review, 25(2), 39–47

Summary: "Describes an experiment in prison psychology. In the summer of 1971, Philip Zimbardo, Craig Haney, and Curtis Banks carried out an experiment to test a simple question: What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph? College student volunteers were pretested and randomly assigned to play the role of prisoner or guard in a simulated prison at Stanford University." -- library catalog record.

FDA Consumer magazine. 6/1981, by Carol Ballentine

Wax, P. M. (1995). Elixirs, diluents, and the passage of the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Annals of Internal Medicine, 122(6), 456–461. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-122-6-199503150-00009

Natural History Museum

Sciencemag.org, By Michael Price, Aug. 9, 2016

Scientific American, By Isabelle De Groote, The Conversation on August 10, 2016

Vimeo video, Dr. Jon Jureidini, Clinical Professor, Critical and Ethical Mental Health Research Group, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

Dyer O. (2004). GlaxoSmithKline faces US lawsuit over concealment of trial results. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 328(7453), 1395. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7453.1395

"GSK agreed to plead guilty to a three-count criminal information, including two counts of introducing misbranded drugs, Paxil and Wellbutrin, into interstate commerce and one count of failing to report safety data about the drug Avandia to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)." -- United States Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, 7/2/2012

RetractionWatch, Adam Marcus, 6/13/2011

Doshi P. No correction, no retraction, no apology, no comment: paroxetine trial reanalysis raises questions about institutional responsibility BMJ 2015; 351 :h4629 doi:10.1136/bmj.h4629

Le Noury J, Nardo J M, Healy D, Jureidini J, Raven M, Tufanaru C et al. Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence BMJ 2015; 351 :h4320 doi:10.1136/bmj.h4320

BMJ 2015;351:h4973
doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h4973 (Published 17 September 2015)

"Study 329 was a clinical trial which was conducted in North America from 1994 to 1998 to study the efficacy of paroxetine, an SSRI anti-depressant, in treating 12- to 18-year-olds diagnosed with major depressive disorder ... study 329 became controversial when it was discovered that the article had been ghostwritten by a PR firm hired by SmithKline Beecham; had made inappropriate claims about the drug's efficacy; and had downplayed safety concerns." -- Wikipedia

Psychology Today, Christopher Lane, 9/16/2015

Psychology Today blog post, by Nancy L. Segal, reviewed by Abigail Fagan

Abstract only. Klitzman, R. L., & Kelmenson, A. M. (2020). Experiment on identical siblings separated at birth: ethical implications for researchers, universities, and archives today. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105983

Megyn Kelly Today, 7/12/2018 (Youtube video)

Yale News, William McCormack, 10/1/2018

Psychology Today, Leon Hoffman, Posted Aug 20, 2018

offman, L., & Oppenheim, L. (2019). Three Identical Strangers and The Twinning Reaction-Clarifying History and Lessons for Today From Peter Neubauer’s Twins Study. JAMA, 322(1), 10–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.8152

Statnews, Karen Glanz and Holly Fernandez Lynch, 2/7/2019

Article abstract. Marks, D. F. (2019). The Hans Eysenck affair: Time to correct the scientific record. Journal of Health Psychology, 24(4), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318820931

Article abstract. Hawkes, N. (2019). Inquiry into eminent psychologist failed to list many unsafe papers, biographer claims. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 367, l6329. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6329

Retraction Watch, Ivan Oransky, 2/20/2020

Kings College London, 5/2019

Science, by Cathleen O'Grady, 7/15/2020

Anthony J. Pelosi, Journal of Health Psychology, Volume: 24 issue: 4, page(s): 421-439 Article first published online: February 22, 2019; Issue published: March 1, 2019 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

Craig, Russell, et al. “Research Misconduct Complaints and Institutional Logics: The Case of Hans Eysenck and the British Psychological Society.” Journal of Health Psychology, Oct. 2020, doi:10.1177/1359105320963542.

For Better Science, by Leonid Schneider, 10/13/2020

"The accusations relate to investigations for the study, based on 12 youngsters with bowel disorders, carried out between 1996 and 1998....
The GMC heard that vulnerable children were subjected to "inappropriate and invasive" tests by the doctors, who breached of "some of the most fundamental rules in medicine".Wakefield did not have paediatric qualifications and had not worked as a clinical doctor for several years when he ordered the tests, the panel was told. One of the key claims was that Wakefield accepted more than £50,000 from the Legal Aid Board for research to support a group of parents' attempts to fight for compensation....Wakefield was accused of paying children £5 for blood samples at his son's birthday party, then joking about it afterwards." -- theguardian.com, 1/28/2010

Deer Brian. (2011). How the Case against the Mmr Vaccine Was Fixed. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 342(7788), 77–82.

Wakefield "secretly filed a patent application in London claiming to have discovered his own, allegedly safer, single shot.] -- briandeer.com

Suelzer EM, Deal J, Hanus KL, Ruggeri B, Sieracki R, Witkowski E. Assessment of Citations of the Retracted Article by Wakefield et al With Fraudulent Claims of an Association Between Vaccination and Autism. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(11):e1915552. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.15552

Information about the following cases: Wafefield MMR-Autism, PAXIL, Univ. of Wisconsin Goodwin case, the Hwang stem cell case, the Translational omics case, The Riken-Stap case. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Fostering Integrity in Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/21896.

"A link between autism and the Measles-Mumps-Rubella shot has been largely refuted by the medical establishment. But some doctors, along with many parents of autistic children, remain convinced of a connection. This program sifts through both sides of the issue, fully explaining both the link theory and the epidemiological research that vindicates the MMR. Interviews with Dr. Andrew Wakefield-the gastroenterologist who first asserted that the vaccine can cause intestinal infections and lead to brain damage-accompany moving testimony from families affected by autism, as well as extensive commentary from skeptical physicians." -- video description

Khan H, Gasparyan AY, Gupta L. Lessons Learned from Publicizing and Retracting an Erroneous Hypothesis on the Mumps, Measles, Rubella (MMR) Vaccination with Unethical Implications. J Korean Med Sci. 2021;36(19):e126. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e126

Retraction Watch