Neuroscientist Guilty of Misconduct - Something to Watch

While working at State University of New York Upstate Medical Center and funded by the National Institutes of Health, Michael Miller falsified data to exaggerate the effects of alcohol on fetal development.

We know the push is on to "blame the victims" for unavoidable health effects from environmental contamination, but this too? Is nothing sacred?

Neuroscientist Guilty of Misconduct

Michael Miller is found guilty of research misconduct, having misconstrued data in four NIH grants, two papers, and one manuscript.

The Office of Research Integrity has found neuroscientist Michael Miller guilty of research misconduct. Formerly of the State University of New York Upstate Medical Center, Miller altered figures and data in four National Institutes of Health grants, two already retracted papers, and one submitted manuscript. All efforts appear to exaggerate the effects of alcohol on fetal development.

reply to post by soficrow


So where does that leave us? I believe a harelip is linked to alcohol intake from the 10th to the 18th day of pregnancy, but I don't know whose research that was. It's no longer good to link to one reseach paper, but now we'll have to find corroborating evidence? Did I miss a link to his research claims in the article?

reply to post by soficrow


The problem with this, is that alcohol does cause damage and general retardation, both mental and physical, problems if drunk to excess during pregnancy. What this researcher has done seems to be more a case of misappropriation of research funds, and then not actually done the work properly, most likely because those who were providing the funding wanted that result. General advice during pregnancy is no more than a couple or so units of alcohol in a week, but that depends on any other bad habits that the mother may or may not have. But with or without this study, it is still proven that excessive alcohol consumption during pregnancy is a primary cause of mental disability or low functionality in babies at birth.

Really what one has to wonder, is why anyone would want to pour more money into research into something that is already and known and given, when there are more than enough unknowns to be understood. Any idea who provided the funding on this study.

ETA...sorry skim reading, I see that you gave the funding source in the OP..doh!

reply to post by aboutface

reply to post by Biliverdin


I don't defend drinking in pregnancy, nor do I wish to imply it's okay. However, many diseases and disorders that are marketed in public health campaigns as self-caused or genetic simply are not. At best, they may be epigenetic. ....Take spina bifida for example - it's still described as a genetic disorder when it's absolutely proved and well-known to be caused by a folic acid deficiency.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that mothers are being blamed for a range of birth defects well beyond their full control.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by aboutface

 

reply to post by Biliverdin

 

I don't defend drinking in pregnancy, nor do I wish to imply it's okay. However, many diseases and disorders that are marketed in public health campaigns as self-caused or genetic simply are not. At best, they may be epigenetic. ....Take spina bifida for example - it's still described as a genetic disorder when it's absolutely proved and well-known to be caused by a folic acid deficiency.

That depends upon where you are though. Here, in the UK women are advised to take folic acid supplements when they start trying to conceive because of the relationship to Spina Bifida. And that has been the case for at least the past 10 years.

I have to be honest, the level of prenatal and neonatal care in the US never ceases to amaze me, it is singularly appalling and an embarassment.