Iowa State researcher indicted for faking “promising” AIDS vaccine studies

Years ago, Dr. Michael Cho and Dr. Dong-Pyou were working on HIV research at Case Western Reserve University. The two began a collaboration that lasted for about a dozen years.

One of the projects they worked on was trying to develop an anti-HIV vaccine.  They started receiving grants for this research.  Over the course of time, the grants totaled nearly $20 million.  One reason for the steady stream of grant funding was that their research showed that the vaccine they were working on was causing rabbits to form antibodies against HIV.  The implication was that, if rabbits could build an immune response to the vaccine, the same might happen in humans.  This might finally be an anti-HIV vaccine that worked.

Iowa State University recruited Dr. Cho to move himself and his research there.  Cho did and invited Dr. Han, whose research formed the cornerstone of this vaccine work, along.  Han accepted.  They moved themselves and their research to ISU.  Research continued there on the vaccine and other projects.

At about this time, other researchers, not affiliated with Cho’s group, tried  to reproduce the results that Cho had announced.  They immunized rabbits with Cho’s vaccine.  But the rabbits didn’t develop much in the way of an antibody response.  Certainly not the “exciting results” that the original researchers claimed.  The researchers reported their conflict ion results to ISU.  ISU launched an investigation.  The positive antibody results had all come from the work that Dr. Han had done.

Investigators took the rabbit blood samples, that Han claimed contained high levels of antibody and sent them off for testing to another laboratory.  This reference laboratory did find high levels of antibody in the samples.  But the antibody wasn’t made by rabbits, it was antibody made in humans.  Humans who had never been injected with the vaccine.  It had been added to the rabbit blood so that the research would show positive and promising results.

HIV virus attacking cell. 3D render, via Shutterstock.

HIV virus attacking cell. 3D render, via Shutterstock.

ISU confronted Dr. Han and he admitted that he had “spiked” the rabbit blood samples.  That is, he added the desired antibody to the rabbits’ blood to make the data look much better.  With promising results like this, he was hoping to continue to get more grant money and further advance his career.  He apologized for his deception.  ISU allowed him to resign and the papers published that used Han’s faked data were retracted.

Often that’s where the stories about research fraud end.  The researcher resigns.  But in some cases, those who provided the funding get involved and actually prosecute the researcher.  This doesn’t happen often.  Only a few times in the US that I’m aware of.  And once or twice in Europe.

In this case, much of the money came from grants provided through the federal government.  They are now investigating the matter.  About $4 million dollars in grant money has been disbursed to Cho and others, but hasn’t been spent.  They are deciding whether to let ISU and or Cho (the researcher who did not fake the data) use it, or take it back and give it to other researchers.  The government is also considering if it can require ISU to pay back any funds already spent on the spurious research.

Dr. Dong-Pyou Dr. Han apologized for his misconduct after he resigned from ISU.  The government, however, wanted more.  Last week, Han was indicted on four counts of fraud.  Right now he is free on bail.  He can face up to five years in jail for each count of fraud, and may be required to pay back part of the research funds.  ISU has already repaid about $500,000.

Dr. Cho and the other research team members have been exonerated from any wrongdoing in the research.

In a related story, Dr. Alfredo Fusco is being investigated in Italy for scientific fraud. He is accused of falsifying some of his data on cancer research.

I’d written before about the problem of fraudulent research. In my opinion, not enough has been done to address it. And until it is, we will continue to be plagued by the Dr. Dong-Pyous of the world.

Mark Thoma, MD, is a physician who did his residency in internal medicine. Mark has a long history of social activism, and was an early technogeek, and science junkie, after evolving through his nerd phase. Favorite quote: “The most exciting phrase to hear in science... is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny.'” - Isaac Asimov

Share This Post

20 Responses to “Iowa State researcher indicted for faking “promising” AIDS vaccine studies”

  1. docsterx says:

    A portion of the original grant money earmarked for this discredited AIDS vaccine research had yet to be disbursed by the NIH. The NIH announced that it will not release the remaining funds (about $1.2 million dollars) to the universities and researchers who were working with Dr. Dong-pyou Han. Even though the other researchers and universities appear to be blameless, the NIH feels that the research is now essentially worthless since it’s most promising data is suspect.

    Dr. Han, who previously had written a letter of apology to the university admitting that he deliberately altered the research, was charged with 4 counts of falsifying his research. At his hearing, he pleaded not guilty to all counts. If he’s convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1,000,000.

  2. Thom Allen says:

    UPDATE: A portion of the original grant money earmarked for this discredited AIDS vaccine research had yet to be disbursed by the NIH. The NIH announced that it will not release the remaining funds (about $1.2 million dollars) to the universities and researchers who were working with Dr. Dong-pyou Han. Even though the other researchers and universities appear to be blameless, the NIH feels that the research is now essentially worthless since it’s most promising data is suspect.

  3. michelleobetts says:

    before I looked at the check of $8543 , I accept
    …that…my neighbour woz like they say truley earning money parttime on their
    apple labtop. . there sisters neighbour has done this 4 only 19 months and by
    now cleared the debts on their house and bourt a gorgeous Ford . visit this
    site C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

  4. olgahmccoin says:

    Peyton . true that Jessica `s blurb is shocking, last
    monday I got a gorgeous Peugeot 205 GTi after having earned $6860 this past 4
    weeks an would you believe ten-k this past-month . with-out a doubt this is the
    easiest-job I’ve ever had . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much
    immediately started to bring in minimum $84… p/h . Read More Here

  5. vincenzajlogsdon says:

    as Thelma explained I cannot
    believe that a stay at home mom can make $7420 in four weeks on the internet .
    more info here R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

  6. Moderator4 says:

    Banished to the spam folder. Thank you.

  7. Thom Allen says:

    UPDATE: Dr. Dong-Pyou Han entered not guilty pleas to each of the four counts of fraud. This is in spite of the reputed apology letter that he wrote accepting responsibility for falsifying results.

  8. Thom Allen says:

    Another spammer

  9. berthamdonovan says:

    just as
    Robert answered I am impressed that a mom can profit $8694 in 4 weeks on the
    internet . Visit Website M­o­n­e­y­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

  10. 1jetpackangel says:

    The ad in my top left corner is for “Rabbit Monoclonal Abs. High affinity rabbit antibodies. Highly specific monoclonals.” So, after some googling, in an article about research fraud I have an ad for petri-dish-ready rabbit cells. Now there’s some targeted advertising. *quiet applause*

  11. The_Fixer says:

    Hey, Claudine! Wow, you’ve been busy! Your classmate’s aunt also made money on a computer? Does she use a macbook or a PC? I am still waiting to hear if I need a mac for sure, or if I can use a PC. Wow, she makes even more than your Aunty Allison!

    Are you jealous? I would be. By the way, I am still waiting to hear who I should contact at that other web site. Is this web site better? Who should I ask for there? It looks like this web site pays better, let me know.

  12. claudineabelson says:

    my classmate’s
    aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for 7 months but
    last month her paycheck was $15495 just working on the computer for a few
    hours. visit the site R­e­x­1­0­.­C­O­M­

  13. trinu says:

    Part of the problem with fraud like this is replication costs money. So because of what he did, we spent millions of dollars trying to reproduce his results.

  14. nicho says:

    And yet not not one purveyor of “gay reparation therapy” has been indicted on criminal charges. Nor has anyone from the Family Research Council been indicted for spreading their bogus research.

  15. Naja pallida says:

    This kind of thing is why science should have peer review and reproducibility requirements before something is published outside of research circles. It’s annoying when the press picks up on some vague notion, or tiny tidbit of work that sounds promising on paper, and blows it out of proportion before the scientific community has even had a chance to verify any results. You’d think they’d have learned their lesson with the cold fusion nonsense back in the 80s.

  16. It’s ok, yeah I noticed that this morning. I know the spelling, but it was late :)

  17. Egan Foote says:

    Relax. I was just messing around.

  18. Indigo says:

    Fraud? Yes, it is fraud and unhappily present in academic research right along with plagiarism.

    Hard science in particular is subject to reproducibility. I’m a little surprised that ISU hopped on that band wagon and hired the researchers without first verifying the research. There we are, then, with fraud on one side of the contract and over-eager gullibility on the other. Fraud and foolishness go hand in hand in this story as in so many similar academic snafus. Years ago, grant-hogs were all about nuclear fusion. Now it’s HIV-immunities. What’s next? Longevity drugs, I bet.

  19. Moderator3 says:

    It was spelled correctly within the article, so don’t bust his chops over a typo.

  20. Egan Foote says:

    Was he also “indicted”?

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS