Are you implying that he was let off easy? Should have gone to jail, IMO: "The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need, without ethical approval."
Performing unfounded experiments on children while committing fraud should be treated as criminal, not simply reputation-destroying, IMO.
(I understand we need to protect researchers from some liabilities in the ethical pursuit of progress, but he was so far over the line that the "slippery slope" argument is kind of silly. Should medical researchers be immune to all prosecution no matter what they do or what lies they tell?)
Are you implying that he was let off easy? Should have gone to jail, IMO: "The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need, without ethical approval."
Performing unfounded experiments on children while committing fraud should be treated as criminal, not simply reputation-destroying, IMO.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakef...
(I understand we need to protect researchers from some liabilities in the ethical pursuit of progress, but he was so far over the line that the "slippery slope" argument is kind of silly. Should medical researchers be immune to all prosecution no matter what they do or what lies they tell?)