Media Coverage About SAEN Stop Animal Exploitation Now

Federal investigation follows retraction of five animal experimentation papers



Alexander Runko, Ph.D.
Division of Investigative Oversight
Office of Research Integrity
Via email: [email protected] [email protected]

Dr. Runko,

Fraudulent research must not be tolerated. You must convict William Armstead, formerly of the University of Pennsylvania, of Research Misconduct for the five fraudulent publications, which were retracted because "it was discovered that the data in the article could not be substantiated by the source data.”

This is not anything that even roughly resembles science; it is nothing but fraud. Armstead must be convicted of Research Misconduct, and he must receive the maximum penalty.


Federal investigation follows retraction of five animal experimentation papers

From PelhalNews.IN, Augut 29, 2022

The federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has begun an investigation into attainable alleged misconduct after the retraction of five papers involving animal experiments on new child piglets led by a now retired professor on the University of Pennsylvania.

The ORI confirmed that it had initiated an oversight review into the retracted papers that have been produced by groups of researchers led by pharmacology professor William Armstead at Penn, which is a component of the US’s prestigious Ivy League.

Such critiques cowl a range of alleged misconduct together with fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in finishing up the analysis.

Armstead, who’s described by Penn’s Perelman college of medication as now being retired, was the lead creator of the five papers which have been revealed in a spread of peer-reviewed journals between 2016 and 2019. Three of the papers have been revealed by the Journal of Neurotrauma, together with one titled “Sex and age differences in epinephrine mechanisms and outcomes” which used the piglet experiments to take a look at whether or not adrenaline might ameliorate impairments after traumatic mind damage.

The Journal of Neurotrauma in June issued a full retraction of the paper in addition to two others. The journal’s editor-in-chief mentioned it had completed so on the request of Armstead himself, on the grounds that “substantive questions have arisen regarding the findings, presentation and conclusions reported in the paper that could not be answered with available source data”.

The journal added that main as much as the retraction, each the writer and editor had requested further data from Armstead referring to questions that had been raised “that invalidated the findings in the study”. But he didn’t reply to the issues. They agreed to his request for a retraction after receiving agreements from the co-authors.

The Guardian has contacted Armstead, in addition to to the University of Pennsylvania, for remark. Neither replied instantly.

The editor and writer of the Journal of Neurotrauma mentioned they have been “committed to preserving the accuracy of scientific literature”.

The doubts surrounding the Penn analysis have been first delivered to the eye of the ORI by the advocacy group Stop Animal Exploitation NOW! (SAEN). It has despatched a series of complaints to the federal watchdog accusing Armstead of analysis misconduct and demanding an investigation.

A press launch on Monday from SAEN described the Armstead analysis papers which have been retracted as “gruesome, multimillion dollar tax-funded experiments”. It mentioned that the analysis had “inflicted traumatic head injuries on dozens of newborn piglets”.

In the ORI criticism, SAEN’s govt director, Michael Budkie, argued that the deaths of so many piglets within the course of now doubted science was “utterly reprehensible”.

He wrote: “The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is indefensible ‘science’. It is clear from the articles themselves that dozens of ‘newborn pigs’ were killed in what are clearly scientifically meaningless retracted studies.”

At least some of the five analysis papers which have now been retracted have been funded with public cash. The “Sex and Age Differences” analysis was carried out with a five-year grant from the National Institutes of Health that amounted to nearly $2m, in line with SAEN.

See also:
Return to Media Coverage