I am in a public place with a TV that has no sound and no titles. 60 Minutes keeps showing pretty pictures of West Campus and extreme closeups of a dude with glasses on.
It looks like an expose and it seems to have something to do with cancer. What's going on?
A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
Some questions cannot be answered
Who’s gonna bury who
We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
---Over the Rhine
Last edited by 77devil; 02-12-2012 at 08:11 PM.
Yea, I just got done watching the segment online. Obviously, it is NEVER a good day when 60 Minutes shows up at your doorstep to do an expose. How much damage this segment will do to the Duke "brand" remains to be seen, even though there is NO evidence that anyone other than Dr. Potti knew of the fraud and deception that took place in the research. I think Scott Pelley and 60 Minutes were trying to get Duke to admit that they overlooked any suspicions about the quality of the research because they knew that this would be extremely lucrative for the university, if true. I'm not sure how many viewers will accept this premise. The unfortunate fact is that it is difficult for any university to monitor the work of hundreds or even thousands of individuals who may work there and be producing research. Obviously, a blemish on Duke but I'm not sure that it is a permanent blemish.
terrible event, but I thought Duke came out ok, all things considered.
First time I've heard about this. Sounds like Potti's conduct was outrageous and he should have the book thrown at him in every sense. However, members of the Duke community, above all others, should have learned through the lacrosse hoax and through the general unfair villification of Duke basketball, Duke student body characteristics, alleged Duke snobbery, etc., to be careful of making judgments untill all facts are known and correlated.
Not sure the Jacobs case is a legal winner for plantiffs but sure sounds awful nonetheless.
Wrote the above based on the 60 Minutes article--when given a choice, I'll almost always read a transcript rather than watch a video because it is more efficient and more "objective." But this is one example where the video yields some additional thoughts now that I've watched it.
The Duke employees could certainly use a little more media training. They weren't a disaster on camera but could have chosen their words a bit more carefully.
Have there been any housecleanings at Duke of the people who supervised Potti? Got to do this carefully so as not to impact the case(s).
I'd think a cooperative initiative in conjunction with other major health research universities regarding verification of credentials and tighter continuing review of research might not only be in Duke's interests but benefit the public and all such universities.
The video version made me sad and angry. I've met so many bright, talented people, drunk with ambition, who have relied on deceit to advance their career progress and recognition. In many (though not all) instances these were people who legitimately thought they were devoted in general to doing good--and in fact to a great extent were doing good. But they often had a compulsion to embellish their backgrounds, often needlessly, or to misrepresnt elements of their past or current work.
Why does this go on to this extent? There must be more at play in many than the lust for greater economic success or career recognition. Insecurity? Living with the fear of being found out to be a fraud (apparently a common fear of successful men from what I've read) so one lives up (?) to it? A secret desire to be caught in actual fraud--or to see how much one could push the envelope without being caught?
Here's an older article from the Economist that has a feel more details.