Swedish Central Ethics Review Board finds Macchiarini guilty of misconduct, requests retraction of 6

Those numbers seem too low to be labeled as being "swamped". Did they just expect one or two cases per year and had a staff of one?

But yeah no question that medicine is particularly home to fraudulent and just plain bad research, someone really ought to do something about this...

 

Surgeon on trial in Sweden over experimental windpipe transplants

"An Italian doctor who made headlines for pioneering windpipe surgery has gone on trial in Sweden, charged with aggravated assault for performing the experimental procedure."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-over-windpipe-transplants-paolo-macchiarini

 

"Swedish court finds Italian star surgeon guilty of ‘causing bodily harm’

A court in Sweden has found the scandal-hit Italian surgeon Paolo Macchiarini guilty of a serious crime causing bodily harm for one of three experimental operations implanting synthetic windpipes in patients."

https://www.thelocal.se/20220616/sw...n-star-surgeon-guilty-of-causing-bodily-harm/

 

BMJ Retract or be damned: a dangerous moment for science and the public
By editor in chief Kamran Abbasi

Quote:
Two troubling themes emerge from John Rasko and Carl Power’s examination of Macchiarini’s legacy (doi:10.1136/bmj.p1367).3 First is the apparent unwillingness of institutions to admit to wrongdoing by their staff. Even when allegations are proved after investigation, institutions are reluctant to act on evidence of scientific misconduct under their purview. By some estimates, a case of major scientific fraud occurs at every institution each year, yet we hear of cases only rarely.

The explanations are obvious enough. Institutions don’t want their reputations tarnished by public findings of wrongdoing, and the people complained about may often be litigious. None of this, however, serves the public. Without correction of the scientific record and transparency about misconduct, as is the case with Macchiarini, patients continue to be harmed. Self interest, unfortunately, may often be the prime motivator, which makes the argument for a national independent office of research integrity where one doesn’t exist.

Second is the unwillingness of scientific journals to retract seriously flawed data that mean the findings and conclusions cannot be relied on. When a decision to retract is finally made it may not be obvious from the journal’s website, and it is unlikely to be noted by other research websites and databases that host or mention the research paper (doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-072929).4 The result is that flawed research remains in the public domain unretracted, and retracted papers continue to be cited.

https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p1424

 

Swedish investigation spoils Macchiarini cover-up at Lancet

"New developments in the affair of the murderous trachea transplant surgeon and former Karolinska Institutet professor Paolo Macchiarini. The Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct (NPOF) made a decision about a 2014 Lancet paper describing Macchiarini’s very first trachea transplant from 2008, which The Lancet keeps defending as scientifically and ethically valid. Well, NPOF confirmed what everyone already knew: the trachea transplant failed, Macchiarini and his gang lied about it, the Lancet study is fraudulent.

Specifically, the NPOF investigation concerned the 5 year follow-up study, it could not investigate the original 2008 report for formal reasons, since Macchiarini and his acolytes Philipp Jungebluth and Silvia Baiguera were not affiliated with Karolinska at that time yet. But fact is: if one of the two papers is proven fraudulent, the other one can’t remain standing."

https://forbetterscience.com/2023/10/11/swedish-investigation-spoils-macchiarini-cover-up-at-lancet/

 

Tidskrift drar tillbaka artikel av Macchiarini
https://lakartidningen.wordpress.com/2024/01/22/tidskrift-drar-tillbaka-artikel-av-macchiarini/