Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Update: Potti’s South Carolina medical license now listed as active

with 5 comments

Updated at 1:40 p.m. Eastern: When original posted, this item reported, correctly, that the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners’ website listed Anil Potti’s license as “suspended.” However, that status has now been changed to “active,” along with “No disciplinary action taken by the Board. This certifies that the above licensee is in good standing.” We are working to figure out why the status was changed.

Update, 1:55 p.m.: The Board tells us they made a mistake:

I looked into this matter and apparently this was a clerical error on our part because there are no public orders at this time. You should see this reflected on our licensee lookup system within 24 hours. Sorry for any confusion.

Anil Potti, the former Duke oncology researcher who lost his job at a South Carolina oncology practice earlier this week, has had his South Carolina medical license suspended, SCNow reports.

The South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners now lists Potti’s license — which he was granted on April 6, 2011 — as “suspended.” “active.”

We had a look at his other licenses. Potti’s North Carolina license, which was the subject of a reprimand late last year, remains active, according to that state board’s website. He also holds a license from the State of Missouri, which remains active. His Minnesota license, which expired in 2008, is listed as “cancelled, inactive,” without any corrective or disciplinary actions.

Potti has now retracted 10 papers and is the subject of ongoing investigations.

Hat tip: Commenter CTP

Written by Ivan Oransky

February 24th, 2012 at 1:21 pm

  • CTP February 24, 2012 at 2:04 pm

    One hell of a clerical error.

    I can’t think that it was an error, what with Potti being in the news so often.

  • Deborah Thompson February 24, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Unbelievable! I actually thought that the S.C. Board of Medical Examiners might do the right thing.

  • gyges01 February 25, 2012 at 5:55 am

    It would be interesting to do some statistical analysis of the data you’re uncovering. My suspicion is that there is a power law behind retractions. Why don’t you approach someone like Barabasi – – for some sort of collaboration? (And, perhaps, an explanation of this comment!?!).

  • Yinn Bestoff February 26, 2012 at 4:00 am

    This saga resembles a joke based on real case:

    The son-in-law of the President of a communist country has been stopped by traffic police for speeding (60 km over the limit, i.e. driving with 120 km/h in 60-zone). The police officer did not recognize the offender, even after getting his driving licence. Being so astonished by the degree of the offence, the traffic officer did perforate at once the offender’s penalties’ card (at that time there were no computerised records for driver’s offences). Then the driver did pull his card back and shouted: “What have you done, you idiot? Do you know who I am?” In this moment the traffic officer realized what he has done and visibly shaking wrote on the penalties’ card: ”This hole is NOT a hole!”

  • Y.K.Ramaiah,M.D February 26, 2012 at 11:44 am

    This guy is a disgace to indian community and to the scientific community in general,.THank God he was nailed down at last.The reviewers of articles to the particular journal should be vigilant on every research article each time irrespective of who the scientist is and from which institution it is coming from.

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.