Judges’ comments:
An extremely thorough and dogged accomplishment of reporting with a remarkable outcome – the downfall of a well-established and regarded researcher, as well as the retraction of his major research. It also raised significant questions about the integrity among top brass at Duke University. It’s clear the reporter’s knowledge base and access to sources were critical in the success of this investigation.
1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
The Duke Debacle: Misadventures in Personalized Medicine
By Paul Goldberg
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
The key articles in this series were published July 16, July 23 and July 30, 2010. The Nov. 19, 2010, issue is included to demonstrate the impact of Goldberg’s reporting. Altogether, Goldberg reported on the problems at Duke in 10 articles from October 2009 through December 2010. Also included for reference is Goldberg’s May 14, 2010 article describing a key document he obtained through the Freedom of
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Paul Goldberg, editor of The Cancer Letter, reported that a widely published, influential researcher at Duke University had misrepresented his credentials, claiming falsely to have won a Rhodes scholarship and a number of lesser awards. These falsified stellar credentials helped the researcher in questions — Dr. Anil Potti — obtain millions of dollars in grants from the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society. Other researchers were relying on his work, and — most important — cancer patients were being treated based on his technology. Potti and his collaborators at Duke were developing technologies which they claimed could analyze the molecular characteristics of the patients’ tumors and use this information to select optimal therapies. The Cancer Letter’s story ended Potti’s illustrious career at Duke and triggered a cascade of investigations and retractions by major medical journals. The Journal of Clinical Oncology was the first to publish such a retraction. The Lancet Oncology has published a letter of concern, and a retraction is in process. At this writing, the process leading to a retraction has been initiated at Nature Medicine, and a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine will likely be next to fall. The Institute of Medicine, a component of the National Academy of Sciences, has formed a panel to investigate what went wrong at Duke. Until the Rhodes imbroglio, Potti was a star at Duke. The university supported him in controversies surrounding his work. It conducted three clinical trials in which over 100 patients were assigned to treatment based on Potti’s discoveries. It formed a company that performed analysis of the patients’ tumors in these trials. It held equity in another company that stood poised to commercialize the findings. The university was so much behind Potti that it cast him as a front man in commercials that were broadcast in the Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill. “That’s the goal: is to be able to tell a patient with cancer that I am not just a cancer doctor, I am here to treat your particular cancer,” Potti says in a promotional video, posted at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4ZMIUBeLoY The Rhodes imbroglio followed nearly a year of controversy over reliability of findings by Potti’s Duke team. The controversy first exploded in August 2009, when two statisticians from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center first warned that the findings of the Duke team could not be replicated — and that about 100 patients enrolled in Duke trials of the technology could be harmed. The university suspended the trials in November 2009, but then restarted them in January 2010, stating that the studies in question were ethical and appropriate. The report of the group that assessed the studies was intended to stay under wraps, but a copy was sent to the National Cancer Institute, where it fell under the provisions of the Freedom on Information Act. After obtaining the document, The Cancer Letter was able to state unequivocally that Duke university officials were inaccurate in their public statements explaining the decision to restart the trials. Public assertions by the Duke administration notwithstanding, Potti’s technology had not been validated. Yet, the trials went on from January through July, when The Cancer Letter reported fraud in Potti’s credentials. The questions of harm to patients and culpability of the Duke administration warrant further investigation. If a fraudulent technology is used to determine treatment for patients, this can result in assigning patients to therapies to which they are, in fact, resistant. In fact, the very act of systematically ignoring warnings and conducting a study based on a technology that has no merit amounts to
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Potti’s claim to have received a Rhodes scholarship was simple to check through the Rhodes’ website, where a full list of scholars is maintained. Some of his other claims required a few phone calls and comparison of different versions of his CVs. FOIA filing: A report of the group assembled by the Duke administration to assess the studies was intended to stay under wraps, but a copy was sent to the National Cancer Institute, where it fell under the provisions of the Freedom on Information Act. After obtaining the document, Goldberg was able to state unequivocally (in the May 14, 2010 issue of The Cancer Letter) that Duke university officials were inaccurate in their public statements explaining the decision to restart the trials. Public assertions by the Duke administration notwithstanding, Potti’s technology had not been validated.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
1. Biostatisticians who couldn’t replicate the studies. 2. Other experts in the field of genomics. 3. Spokespersons for the institutions involved and the Rhodes Trust. 4. A professor Potti claimed as a
6. Results (if any).
Duke University fired Anil Potti, closed the clinical trials in question, and had to refund over $400,000 in grant money to the American Cancer Society. Three medical journals have retracted or are in the process of retracting his papers. The Institute of Medicine is conducting an investigation.
7. Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No corrections or clarifications.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
This type of investigation is the kind that builds over many months, from one step to another. You have to devote time to understanding the issues and talking to the experts. At each step, you may think there is nothing more, but then some new information comes along. The more you can dig, the more you find. Develop good sources and protect them. When they know you are looking and know they will be protected, it’s amazing what you can find.