Univ. defends its defense against fraud

A Newfoundland university says it took the proper steps to investigate allegations against one of Canada's top researchers

Written byEd Ungar
| 2 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share
Memorial University's investigation of scientific misconduct by nutrition researcher Ranjit Chandra followed the university's existing policies, according to a new Memorial-commissioned report. The report's author, Paul Pencharz at the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children's Research Institute, also recommended that Canada establish a national agency to investigate scientific misconduct, based upon the systems already in place in a number of countries, including the US. Currently, individual universities handle their own investigations. Pencharz told The Scientist that Canada is looking into establishing such an agency.Pencharz emphasizes that the report considers only whether Memorial, based in Newfoundland, followed its own rules while investigating Chandra, and did not investigate whether the university did the right thing by not charging him with misconduct. Meanwhile, the key whistleblower filed a lawsuit against the University the day of the report's release.Memorial commissioned the report in response to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) series aired last year that criticized the university for not taking action in the face of damning evidence.Although questions have been raised about several of Chandra's papers, including a highly-cited Lancet study that reported vitamins fight infectious disease in the elderly, to date, only Nutrition has issued a retraction. Chandra spent 27 years at Memorial, and left of his own accord in 2002, almost 10 years after the school investigated him for misconduct. Allegations were first raised by Marilyn Harvey, Chandra's research nurse, who said that the number of babies cited as subjects in an infant formula study could not possibly have been tested on-site. The university sealed Chandra's office and formed an investigatory committee, which included one member from outside the university. Months later, Memorial received written communications from Chandra's lawyer accompanied by several affidavits supporting Chandra, and decided there was not enough evidence to officially charge him with misconduct. Harvey has launched a lawsuit against the University for breach of fiduciary duty, defamation and conspiracy. Chandra, meanwhile, is suing the university and CBC for $6.5 million. "It is curious to be sued by one person who said you did too much and by another who said you did too little," Chris Loomis, Memorial's vice-president of research, told The Scientist.Neither Chandra nor Harvey responded to requests for comment. Saul Sternberg, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania who raised doubts about the retracted Nutrition article, told The Scientist that he felt that the Pencharz report could prove to be very useful. "This report might actually change Canadian science, if the recommendations are carried out" to establish a national agency to investigate fraud, said Sternberg. If so, "something positive may come out of this rather than the embarrassment of Memorial University."Ed Ungar mail@the-scientist.comLinks within this articleMemorial report http://www.mun.ca/marcomm/home/pencharz_report_2007.pdfPaul Pencharz http://www.sickkids.ca/hscDirectory/personalprofile.asp?pID=2241&s=Research+Programs&sID=28&ss=Integrative+Biology&ssID=375&sss=&sssID=A McCook, "Research's scarlet list," The Scientist, April 25, 2005. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15418D Payne, "Nutritionist's work questioned," The Scientist, May 11, 2004. http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22166/Chandra RK: "Effect of vitamin and trace-element supplementation on immune responses and infection in elderly subjects." Lancet 1992, 340:1124-7 http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/1359211D Payne, "Nutrition retracts 2001 paper," The Scientist, March 3, 2005 http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22614Saul Sternberg http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~saul
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Meet the Author

Share
Image of a woman with her hands across her stomach. She has a look of discomfort on her face. There is a blown up image of her stomach next to her and it has colorful butterflies and gut bacteria all swarming within the gut.
November 2025, Issue 1

Why Do We Feel Butterflies in the Stomach?

These fluttering sensations are the brain’s reaction to certain emotions, which can be amplified or soothed by the gut’s own “bugs".

View this Issue
An image of a DNA sequencing spectrum with a radial blur filter applied.

A Comprehensive Guide to Next-Generation Sequencing

Integra Logo
Golden geometric pattern on a blue background, symbolizing the precision, consistency, and technique essential to effective pipetting.

Best Practices for Precise Pipetting

Integra Logo
Olga Anczukow and Ryan Englander discuss how transcriptome splicing affects immune system function in lung cancer.

Long-Read RNA Sequencing Reveals a Regulatory Role for Splicing in Immunotherapy Responses

Pacific Biosciences logo
Research Roundtable: The Evolving World of Spatial Biology

Research Roundtable: The Evolving World of Spatial Biology

Products

Labvantage Logo

LabVantage Solutions Awarded $22.3 Million U.S Customs and Border Protection Contract to Deliver Next-Generation Forensic LIMS

The Scientist Placeholder Image

Evosep Unveils Open Innovation Initiative to Expand Standardization in Proteomics

OGT logo

OGT expands MRD detection capabilities with new SureSeq Myeloid MRD Plus NGS Panel