ORI does not make plagiarists walk the plank

The journal Science reports that consent forms related to the 21 "approved" stem cell lines may be defective by today's standards. Robert Streiffer is quoted: "We know how to do things better today." Lorraine Iacovitti is quoted: "I was shocked." [IPBiz inquires: as in Casablanca?] The article also notes: "It's not clear whether iPS cells will behave exactly like ES cells. And they can't be used therapeutically because the viral vectors scientists use to introduce genes could be hazardous." 321 Science 756-7.

Page 757 notes a conflict of interest situation at Stanford University, related to Alan Schatzberg (who owns millions of dollars in stock of Corcept Therapeutics.]

Also of note, page 764 has an article "Industrial-Style Screening Meets Academic Biology." An indented article on 766 begins: "Once shunned as too costly and industrial, high-throughput screening is becoming a hot activity at universities." IPBiz asks, does anyone remember high throughput screening in Merck v. Integra?

Page 775 has an article: Scientific Misconduct: Do the punishments fit the crime, an interesting question after UVa's actions related to "Semester at Sea." Studying an 8 year period of ORI, the authors noted 106 cases of misconduct, including 10 of plagiarism. The authors noted "retraction was never required after plagiarism." The authors also noted: "acts of falsification and fabrication were punished more harshly than were acts of plagiarism."