Potti’s Research on Lung Cancer Essay

A: The topic on cancer

The topic on cancer elicits hot debates since treatment options of cancer are quite limited and expensive, while cancers claim so many lives globally. This paper was published in order to give an insight into the newest findings in cancer research by the renowned cancer researcher at the University of Duke. In this case, Potti had discovered a genomic tool that was able to predict the exact early cancer patients who presented with recurrence and hence they could improve when they received chemotherapy treatment (Potti, et al..p. 353). This was good news to medical scientific world because the tool was reported to have about ninety percent accuracy, and hence good news to cancer patients as well. This paper fits into the context of the medical field because since chemotherapy is non-specific, in most cases, patients die either as a result of effects of chemotherapy before the treatment clears the cancer cells or the other way round. This researcher had therefore developed a tool which was quite unique and hence a fingerprint to each patient had the ability of predicting the chances of survival of a lung cancer patient before receiving chemotherapy.

B: The methods used

The methods used involved the comparison between non-taxane regimen and taxane regimen in women with estrogen receptors- negative breast cancer. In order to determine the complete response from gene signatures, RNA was prepared from frozen biopsies and hybridized to affymetrix microarrays (Potti, et al..p. 1294). Single agent drug sensitivity signature were used in combination in order to get TET and FEC regimens.

C: Ethical issues raised by the Office of Research Institute

Ethical issues raised by the Office of Research Institute was that the findings of this researcher were false and flawless (Bild et al.p 350). This is because it is reported that this scientist found out that out of the 33 patients who were enrolled in this study, 6 of them responded positively to the test. However, this institute disputes these findings because only 4 patients were enrolled in the clinical trials, with none of them having shown positive response.

D: In this case the consequences were

In this case, the consequences were that all the articles published by this researcher in the best journals globally were withdrawn (Jane, p. 1). Moreover, it would have been important to ask this scientist to refund back the funds that had been given to him to carry out this research. It would also have been good for the patients who had been used as study participants to receive compensation for this unethical undertaking. This is because there are some patients who have reported to be facing side effects from the wrong chemotherapy that they received during the Duke trials. In this case, some women reported having suffered blood clots and damage on the knee joints. However, although Potti, was stopped from participating in other cancer-related research, he is an employee in a cancer center at North Dakota.

E: The researchers would have dealt with ethics differently

The researchers would have dealt with ethics differently by being transparent in the research findings obtained. This is because for any scientific study conducted, the researchers should ensure that the process can be replicated in subsequent processes by the same or different researchers. However, it appears that this scientist had ill motives of impressing other scientists and lobbying for more research funds. Considering the fact that this study was dealing with human subjects and thus sensitive, the researchers would have reported the exact findings or use a bigger sample size, and not alter the results.

Works Cited

Jane stacil . US says Anil Potti, former Duke doctor, falsified research. Education.(2015) Retrieved from http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article43885173.html

Bild, Andrea H., et al. “Oncogenic pathway signatures in human cancers as a guide to targeted therapies.” Nature 439.7074 (2006): 353.

Potti, Anil, et al. ”Genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics.” Nature medicine 12.11 (2006): 1294.