Vaccination News Home Page subscribe Vaccination NewsLetter
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7385/352/b?etoc
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
|
||||||||
 Collections under
which this article appears: Professional
conduct and regulation Research
and publication ethics |
A cardiologist who published fraudulent research in the BMJ was last week suspended for a year by the General Medical Council.
Dr Mohammed Naeem Shaukat was found to have altered mortality data to produce
results that showed that British patients of Indian origin fared
significantly worse than other British patients after first heart
attacks. On 1 March 1997 the research was published in the BMJ,
in an article entitled "First myocardial infarction in patients of
Indian subcontinent and European origin: comparison of risk factors,
management, and long term outcome" (BMJ 1997;314:639-42)
Ten months later, in January 1998, the BMJ received and published a
letter signed by the article's six authors, including Dr Shaukat,
which stated: "Further examination of the data on which this paper
was based, in the context of another project, has revealed important
inaccuracies such that the conclusions of the paper cannot be
sustained. We therefore wish to withdraw it unreservedly" (BMJ
1998;316:116)
All of the authors worked at Leicester University Medical School when the article was published. Dr Shaukat was also a fellow of the British Heart Foundation. He is now a consultant cardiologist at Kettering General Hospital.
Leicester University launched an internal investigation into the research, which lasted nearly two years and led to a complaint from the dean's office to the GMC's professional conduct committee. The university declined to comment on the case during the investigation and in the GMC hearing, and the BMJ was not told why the research was invalid. The GMC case began in September last year but was adjourned until last week to give Dr Shaukat time to prepare his defence.
Douglas Gentleman, chairing the GMC's professional conduct committee, told Dr Shaukat: "You deliberately entered false data into the study in order to produce a particular result. You not only sought to mislead others, but also implicated colleagues, in the publication of a wholly unreliable research paper.
"The committee have therefore concluded that, in order to mark the gravity
with which it views your conduct, it is appropriate to impose the
maximum sanction available, short of erasure."
© 2003 BMJ
Publishing Group Ltd
|
||||||||
|
Collections under
which this article appears:Professional
conduct and regulation Research
and publication ethics |
| Home | Help | Search/Archive | Feedback | Table of Contents |
© 2003 BMJ Publishing
Group Ltd
ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND
MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION
PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS
OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR
LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND
COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH
YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.