Letter: Cancer study not retracted
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Rosy Daniel is probably right to say there is no longer a battle to be fought about acceptance of the place of complementary therapies in medical care (letter, 17 November). But the saga of the Institute of Cancer Research's study of the Bristol Cancer Help Centre shows that a battle is still needed to
get some research institutions to take scientific misconduct seriously.
Contrary to Dr Daniel's assertion, the original study, though hopelessly flawed, has never been retracted either by its authors or by ICR. Requests by some of the study patients for ICR to set up an inquiry, as recommended in Royal College of Physicians guidelines, have been turned down on the grounds that they have not produced conclusive evidence of scientific misconduct. Yet all the evidence of misconduct, if it occurred, is held by ICR itself, in the original study records to which the study patients have no right of access.
Ironically, ICR was reported recently to be considering suing the authors of a government report that was critical of its research standards. How can an institute think so highly of itself when it refuses to investigate such an improperly conducted study carried out by its own workers? The failure of ICR to investigate the episode and to ensure formal retraction of the original paper is a continuing stain on the integrity of British medical research.
Yours sincerely,
R. H. NICHOLSON
Editor
Bulletin of Medical Ethics
London, N5
17 November
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments