Skip to Main Content
Contribute Try STAT+ Today

Scientists around the globe nowadays regularly take to the internet to scrutinize research after it’s been published — including to run their own analyses of the data and spot mistakes or fraud.

And as interest in this so-called post-publication peer review has swelled, one lawyer argues, biotech and pharma companies would do well to take note. If companies and their investors aren’t reading these sites, they may be the last to know when industry-funded research is called into question.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free!


What is it?

STAT+ is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • STAT+ Conversations
  • Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.
  • And yet, people like Otte of Freenome, despite having a shady scientific background and faking having a PhD. Or, Ramaswamy of Axovant, despite having no scientific background and promoting a failed drug dropped by GSK, both raised hundred millions of dollars from “sophisticated and wise” investors.
    Or, generally speaking, at least 50% of startups have CEOs and/or CSOs that have at best a questionable scientific background or no credible scientific credentials at all.

    That is, no worries a sucker is still born every minute

Comments are closed.