Can we take at face value charges of fraud aimed at two prominent natural product researchers – especially when those products pose such a huge threat to lucrative pharmaceuticals?
Das-tardly deception?
Dipak Das is no wet-behind-the-ears scientific newcomer: as a professor in the Department of Surgery and Director of the Cardiovascular Research Center at the University of Cincinnati (UoC), OH, USA, he can safely be labelled a ‘big shot’. Over 600 of his research papers are currently cited on PubMed, 59 of which concern the ‘red wine’ molecule, resveratrol, a molecule with an extensive range of benefits found at high concentrations in red grape skins – and it’s these papers that are causing headaches for the Professor.
Following a tip-off – anonymous, of course – in 2008, his University undertook an, “Extensive research misconduct” investigation, announcing in January 2012 that Das was guilty of 145 counts of research fraud and data falsification. As of September this year, 17 papers have been retracted by the publishing journals – with resveratrol the topic of most of the retractions. Das’ career is now in freefall.
Western blots and contrasting claims
It’s impossible, as of today, to understand the exact nature of the allegations against Das, since the full 60,000-page(!) report hasn’t yet been released by UoC and links to the 49-page summary no longer work for reasons that are unclear. However, the retractions to date have occurred due to irregularities with some of the images used in the papers: Das is accused of manipulating them to falsify data, while he claims his laboratory only made minor changes, such as increasing the contrast on Western blots, upon request from the journals.
To get a full flavour of this developing story, we recommend checking Retraction Watch, watching Prof Das’ video rebuttal and reading the pro-Das articles written by veteran natural health journalist Bill Sardi, while bearing in mind that Sardi is managing partner for resveratrol manufacturers Longevinex.
A few pertinent questions
This may, of course, be a case of a researcher fiddling the figures to get the results he wanted. But a few questions occur to us about the Das affair. Why, for example, would a tenured professor of high academic standing suddenly get a taste for research fraud after a long career, including nearly 30 years at UoC? Why did UoC notify Prof Das of the imminent release of its epic report while he was lecturing abroad, and give him only 4 days to respond to the allegations – knowing that he was recovering from a stroke? Is there anything to the numerous other irregularities mentioned by Das in a letter to UoC authorities? Do the accusations go beyond image manipulation, which is easy to allege but difficult to refute? And is there any motive for people with vested interests to rubbish the career of a high-profile researcher into a antioxidant with a long list of potential health benefits, including protection from heart attacks, that could one day cause huge damage to drug profits?
We think the last one answers itself. And it’s particularly interesting that the anonymous tip-off that started the Das affair came from the Office of Research Integrity, an arm of the US government – which is, as we all know, no fan of food (dietary) supplements.
And now: curcumin
Curcumin, one of the active components in the spice turmeric, is another natural product with a list of benefits guaranteed to turn pharma executives a sickly shade of grey. And in a case with astonishing parallels to that of Prof Das’, researcher Bharat Aggarwal has been accused of manipulating images in papers concerning curcumin and resveratrol, among other topics.
It’s too early to tell whether this is, as Bill Sardi terms it, an “inquisition” – but we’ll be following both cases closely.
Call to action
- Whatever the truth of these cases, don’t let it affect your personal health decisions! There is a huge amount of evidence in favour of resveratrol’s health benefits, some of which we summarised in our 2006 report to the World Health Organization; after all is said and done, Prof Das is only one of many scientists interested in resveratrol. Much the same is true of curcumin. Remember: whatever the outcome of the Das and Aggarwal cases, it will only serve to muddy the waters of research into these two amazing natural molecules, not invalidate the entire field. So if you’re already taking them – keep taking them, and enjoy the benefits! If you’re not yet taking them, check out independent research or reviews on both resveratrol and curcumin. While cancer prevention is far from the only known benefit of these two remarkable natural substances, the two examples below explain why the drug companies are so keen to take ownership of their properties
Resveratrol: read a recent review article showing how researchers are trying to wrestle resveratrol away from the nutraceutical sector and turn it into a new, safe chemotherapeutic agent against cancer.
Curcumin: another review article that shows why curcumin should be an essential phytonutrient in every adult’s diet, and should be recommended by all clinicians, especially to people with a higher than average risk of cancer.
Comments
your voice counts
01 November 2012 at 3:09 am
Their exists today no more impeccable research concerning "Resveratrol" as an "oligomeric procyanidins" (OPC) discovered by Prof. Jack Masquelier (1950) and well documented in the book OPC in Practice by Bert Schwitters in collaboration with Prof. Jack Mesqualier.Pub.1993 Alfa Omega Editrice Via San Dmasco 23 00165 Roma Italy.
01 November 2012 at 6:45 pm
Firstly, does it matter where a tip off about possible fraud comes from? - surely the important matter is whether after subsequent investigation the accusation is found to have merit.
60,000 pages and Journals retracting articles left right and centre suggests that there was a lot amiss with his research. The investigation took three years to complete. This isn't a 'sudden taste for research fraud' either - some of the retracted articles are as old as 2002.
I have just read the Professors response which is extremely hard going. One thing is abundently clear is that he makes NO reference to anyone 'suppressing' data of benefits to health or any hidden agenda. He blames this entirely on what he perceives as RACISM against Indian academics and researchers by those investigating.
I can only assume the ANH have made this angle up.
As for his motives, I can think of many plausible ones. Fudging positive results to ensure funding for his work is continued, attempting to enhance his reputation. He also has links with the makers of Longevinex a resveratrol-based dietary supplement.
As for Bill Sardi, his stance doesn't seem very supportive to me, he is quoted as saying
"We have now had opportunity to read the entire report by the University of Connecticut and find it particularly disturbing in its details and implications. As a company we do not wish to be associated with scientific research that does not meet the highest level of scientific standards. We stand with the University of Connecticut in its efforts to root out any scientific fraud."
Oh dear.
02 November 2012 at 12:47 pm
Hi Slipp, thanks for your email. We’re just asking a few questions about a case where there’s more going on than meets the eye. We’d like to bring your attention to a comment by Bill Sardi, made in June this year http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/resveratrol-researcher-das-in-video-yes-i-manipulated-images-but-only-because-the-journals-asked-me-to/#more-8231 – some 5 months after the quote you refer to – that we think answers your points and indicates exactly where Sardi stands on the issue:
“I don’t personally think Dr. Das’ letters to UCONN were appropriate or convincing, but we are personally aware that Dr. Das has been affected by the stroke he claims to have experienced. So we don’t believe he was in a solid state of mind to address the allegations by the university at that time...The over-riding issue is why the university is sending letters to journals to expunge 40 years of research conducted at three different institutions by numerous researchers when the evidence to refute UCONN’s allegations no longer exists (records storage is 5 years)...The UCONN review board never examined the original western blots but only “representations” of western blots in their 25-page summary which were analyzed by computer software.
We as a company are aghast that the scientific community has elected to condemn Dr. Das based upon hear-say evidence. If a university can “out” a researcher unfairly this time, then all researchers are at risk. The university originally issued false allegations that stated this negated the scientific conclusions that resveratrol averts mortal heart attacks in lab animals when the western blots only dealt with the mechanisms involved, not the conclusions. Canadian researchers in a published paper begged that resveratrol research for the heart not be brought to a halt over this case and that the science is solid, validated by others. But in 8 years since resveratrol pills have been on the market, cardiology has not launched or even proposed a single human clinical trial involving resveratrol...To this point, we cannot find any significant evidence for fraudulent science. That the UCONN withdrew its website and took it offline after we refuted manyof its false allegations against Dr. Das is a tacit admission UCONN over-stated its claims against Dr. Das.”
06 November 2012 at 2:47 pm
" Curcumin: another review article that shows why curcumin should be an essential phytonutrient in every adult’s diet"
I am an ignoramus on this stuff but I read the Curcumin article in the link and I got the impression that its effect is miniscule if taken orally in capsules and only has a chance of being effectively used by the body if taken intravenously, or as nano particles, implanted devices etc. So in what form are you recommending it as part of adults diet?
07 November 2012 at 7:14 pm
Hi there, thanks for your comment. The review paper you refer to looks at the use of curcumin as a cancer preventative agent, and while the research it examines shows that curcumin has limited bioavailability – largely due to low solubility in water and extensive first-pass metabolism by the liver – nowhere does it call the effect of curcumin “miniscule”. Rather, it describes curcumin as, “A potent antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, antimetastatic, antiangiogenic, antidiabetic, hepatoprotective, antiatherosclerotic, antithrombotic, and antiarthritic agent in cell culture and animal studies”. The authors are primarily concerned with creating effective drug-delivery systems for curcumin, rather than in its intrinsic beneficial properties as a natural ingredient of turmeric or as a food supplement. To buttress their case, they point to clinical studies where curcumin has shown limited effectiveness – studies performed in limited numbers of patients and for various medical indications, none of which included cancer prevention!
Our point was that curcumin is a molecule with an extraordinary list of health benefits, which are recognised as much by mainstream medicine as those involved in natural healthcare. By including curcumin in their diet, either through regular use of turmeric or by taking a high-quality curcumin supplement, anyone can take advantage of its myriad benefits. Even small doses such as those found in turmeric used as a food spice, taken regularly and long-term, will confer advantages – and if you want to increase its bioavailability, make sure you take your turmeric or curcumin supplements with food, since it is highly fat soluble: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/phytochemicals/curcumin/.
Your voice counts
We welcome your comments and are very interested in your point of view, but we ask that you keep them relevant to the article, that they be civil and without commercial links. All comments are moderated prior to being published. We reserve the right to edit or not publish comments that we consider abusive or offensive.
There is extra content here from a third party provider. You will be unable to see this content unless you agree to allow Content Cookies. Cookie Preferences