1. CHANDRA’S MULTIVITAMINS FRAUDULENT DATA AND ITS EFFECTS

2. DR. RANJIT KUMAR CHANDRA Worked 27 years as a nutritionist at Canada’s Memorial University and Janeway Child Health Center in St. John’s, Newfoundland, and Labrador Internationally known Published over 140 papers Recipient of the Order of Canada (a high honor for merit in Canada) and is a 2-time Nobel Prize-nominee

3. THE STUDY AND SCIENTIFIC FRAUD Claimed to demonstrate “cognitive benefits” for seniors (over 65 years) who took a daily multivitamin supplement Claimed the patented formula could reverse memory problems “Scientific journals and three independent American scientists raised questions about the validity of Dr. Chandra’s findings, saying the study…has statistical irregularities and inconsistencies, and is characterized by impossible research methods” Peer reviewers at British Medical Journal questioned the statistics as well When accusations began, he was asked for the raw data – never provided Response to questioned results: tells people to repeat his study for themselves Investigation led to discovery of a pattern of scientific fraud going back to 80s Employing University was aware, did not stop him

4. BREACHING ETHICS Fabricated study Published results “too good to be true” Cognitive function of his test subjects increased by an average of 6 points Amrit Jain Published an article confirming Chandra’s study Later found to be an artificial person Chandra “invented” him Misleading information published about a multivitamin targeted toward the elderly Actual effectiveness unknown Possible side-effects unknown

5. EVIDENCE OF FRAUD Performed a study in 1980s Claimed he didn’t have enough money to properly complete the study Published results from the multivitamin study showed a significant increase in cognitive function When questioned about these results, he cited error in one of the cognitive analyses He claimed to have performed multiple independent cognitive analyses Wechsler Memory Test Digit Span Forward Long-term Memory Recall Mini-Mental State

6. EVIDENCE OF FRAUD When he was asked to reproduce his findings, he took a leave of absence from his University He later resigned from his position at Memorial University of Newfoundland Amrit Jain Fake scientist “invented” by Chandra Reviewed the study and gave a very high approval Had a P.O. Box linked to Canada Nutrition Journal in which Chandra’s paper was published Chandra was the only author on his paper

7. HOW DID THE BREACH OCCUR? No data was able to be recovered from the original study Chandra published a conclusion but refused to reproduce his data His sudden resignation and refusal to cooperate indicate guilt Thus, it was concluded that he fabricated his findings

8. REASONS FOR THE BREACH Upon investigation, no information was found suggesting that there were no personal issues that led Chandra to fabricate his data. Chandra never offered any comments regarding his breach in ethics. Chandra essentially disappeared from the public eye.

9. CONSEQUENCES: IMMEDIATE Upon publication, Dr. Chandra’s article attracted the attention of many professionals in his field. Two letters were written to Nutrition questioning aspects of his publication. These letters were written by Susan Shenkin and Saul Sternberg. Upon submission these letters were published in nutrition, along with a response to both written by Dr. Chandra. Dr. Chandra cited an Error in naming, stating standard error should have been named standard deviation. This was not a satisfactory explanation of all the questions being asked. Other articles of Chandra’s were called into question, including a 1992 article concerning the same study. Concerns and a response by Dr. Chandra was published in Lancet.

10. CONSEQUENCES: IMMEDIATE British Medical Journal made it known that they refused to publish the study based on statistical anomalies that showed that it “had all the hallmarks of being entirely invented.” Dr. Chandra was asked to produce his raw data; however he claimed that his university lost it in a change of office. Amrit Jain published an article confirming Chandra’s study, however this person was found to never have existed, and was invented by Dr. Chandra No further evidence has been found to show that this study was actually performed.

11. CONSEQUENCES: LONG TERM The strongest long term damage inflicted by his fraud did was damage to science as a whole. With every new public scandal dealing in scientific fraud, the public loses faith in scientific data. In this example alone, many scientist called the peer review process into question, as the article was peer reviewed, but still went to print.

12. RECOMMENDATIONS This case exposed flaws in the peer review process 1. Re-examine the peer review process Make it more difficult to have an article published in a scientific journal Must show significant data and be able to reproduce it 2.Journals must check the validity of scientists attempting to publish in journals How is it possible for a made up person to publish an article? 3.Scientific community must punish scientists that try to produce artificial research Create a board to oversee these cases Make sure this case never happens again

13. REFERENCES Brody, Jane E. "A Top Scientist's Research Is Under Attack." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 May 2004. Web. 5 June 2012.. Chandra, Ranjit Kumar. "Effect of Vitamin and Trace-element Supplementation on Cognitive Function in Elderly Subjects." Nutrition 17.9 (2001): 709-12. Print. News, CBC. "Journals Call for Review of Scientist's Multivitamin Research." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 10 June 2004. Web. 11 June 2012.. Roberts, Seth. "Dealing with Scientific Fraud: A Proposal." Public Health Nutrition 9.6 (2006): 664-65. Print. "The Secret Life of Ranjit Chandra Reporter." The Secret Life of Ranjit Chandra Reporter. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 June 2012.