Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Prostate cancer researcher who retracted two studies at center of lawsuit departs Hopkins

with 5 comments

Robert Getzenberg, the Johns Hopkins prostate cancer researcher who has recently retracted two papers involved in work he was sued over, has left the university, Retraction Watch has learned.

Getzenberg, who directed the Research Laboratories at the Hopkins’ Brady Urological Institute, has been working on an alternative to the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test. In 2009, he — along with Hopkins and Pitt, his former employer — was sued by a company that funded his work, Science magazine reported at the time. The suits were eventually settled for an undisclosed amount, and Getzenberg and his colleagues have now retracted two papers, one in Urology and one in The Prostate, as we’ve reported.

Hopkins confirmed that Getzenberg’s last day at the university was July 2, but said the reasons for his departure, including whether they were related to the dispute over his work, was confidential. His plans are unclear, and we have been unable to reach him, but will update with anything we learn.

Written by Ivan Oransky

July 30th, 2012 at 1:49 pm

Comments
  • Rafa July 30, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    On the other hand, in my country such kind of people are promoted and showered with prizes.

    • mojo August 3, 2012 at 10:42 am

      Rafa why is that some of the comments you share seems to be similar which i have for people from India. I dont have much idea about all the scientist working in different fields but i my work i know few of them who have just pulled down others by all means to go ahead. There is a Indian Crab story which i can share later on. In one instance this guy kept the review pending of paper which had come to us becos he was about to publsih a similar story!

  • YouKnowBestOfAll July 31, 2012 at 10:15 am

    This case is a brilliant example of what “works” when dealing with publication misconduct.

    The sponsor (private company) did sue the researcher and his institution (the university) for scientific fraud.

    The same should happen in ALL CASES of scientific fraud (manipulation/fabrication of data and/or plagiarism/self-plagiarism) funded by the public!

    FBI should establish a new department “Scientific Fraud” which should investigate and sue the researchers and their institutions (the universities).

    This will purify the Augean stables in academic publishing.

  • fernando pessoa December 29, 2012 at 5:23 am

    Third Getzenberg retraction.

    Published OnlineFirst December 27, 2012; doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2711

    http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2012/12/24/1078-0432.CCR-12-2711.full?sid=d81ee927-db85-4762-98ba-00565270d5b9

  • fernando pessoa December 29, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Fourth Getzenberg retraction.

    Published OnlineFirst December 27, 2012; doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-3286

    http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/18/0008-5472.CAN-12-3286.full?sid=09eebf2c-ff93-4da3-8744-b8b74ab41340

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.