Talk:Bharat Aggarwal

"Indirect" announcement of Bharat Aggarwal's retirement from the faculty of MD Anderson Cancer Center

As noted in the text I added to the article, news of Professor Aggarwal's retirement came via a statement provided by MD Anderson Cancer Center to the blog Retraction Watch, which was then published by the blog. News of this retirement seems quite appropriate for inclusion in the article, especially given what appear to be major contributing circumstances (questions of scientific integrity) presented elsewhere in the article. However, citing a bilateral communication containing information which is not available publicly either from MD Anderson or Aggarwal, is not a fully satisfactory situation. For this reason links were provided to an archived faculty listing (5Sep2015) and the current (24Feb2016) faculty listing, to enable comparison of the two listings vis-a-vis the absence or presence of Aggarwal's name. Comments to the linked Retraction Watch blog post state that Aggarwal has continued to publish scientific articles after his departure from MD Anderson, and he now uses a gmail contact e-mail address, rather than his (former) MD Anderson e-mail address. This information was not included in the article, but further substantiates the assertion that Aggarwal has left the faculty of MD Anderson. Sharl928 (talk) 06:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This wikipedia page is very biased. It does not mention under "Work" almost 15 other books that Dr. Aggarwal has edited. It only talks about Healing Spices. Also it does not state all his achievements. It is a living person's biography and needs to properly balanced. Also retraction watch is a "Blog" not a reliable news source. Retraction watch does not edit any hateful comments by biased people who may not have good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC41:D040:743B:39BC:5D15:7DFB (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments on Retractions, Book Lists, Etc.

This page is of living person. Some one out there is trying to tarnish the reputation by putting only one sided things. Who ever put the retracted articles, you need to put all the 500 articles also so that a correct picture of the whole career is shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3ABB:B6A0:91E9:7959:765F:8AC5 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC) (@WikiDan61:

(@WikiDan61: Also the reason given for the retraction is opinion of a person who wrote it. The source cannot be poor. You cannot give your own opinion in a living biography. Also why only one book is mentioned when there are 17 books edited by Dr. Aggarwal. All are in public domain, Amazon etc. Also why only retracted articles are mentioned. Why 500 other articles that are published in public domain not mentioned. The biography has to be fair. It is completely lopsided, and does not give a fair and accurate picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 21:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Universaljustice: @2602:306:3ABB:B6A0:91E9:7959:765F:8AC5: Understand that I reverted the edits in question based only on the fact that a large swath of sourced material was removed without explanation. Now that the discussion is under way, I will do what I can to evaluate the sources. However, not being knowledgeable in the field, my own opinions on the matter may be of little value. Other editors are welcome to weigh in on the matter as well. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

1. The reasons for the retractions were widely covered by numerous reliable sources, additionally, each of the retraction notices specifies the exact reason that each individual article was retracted. There is no question as to whether they were retracted or why they were retracted – data manipulation/fraud.
2. There are no “poor” sources cited.
3. There are no unsourced opinions expressed in the article.
4. Retracted publications are mentioned because they are noteworthy and have been discussed by secondary sources, and it’s useful for readers to know which articles were retracted and why.
5. WP bios are not meant to provide an exhaustive listing of every publication that a scientist may have to their credit. WP bios are not resumes. Listing all 500 of his publications in the article would not be the way to go, but the article does have an external link to an archived copy of his old faculty webpage that provides an ample list. A short list of a few of his most widely cited/high impact publications could be included in the article, but the problem with doing so is that some or all of them may have been retracted, and that would create a conundrum.
6. Bear in mind that Aggarwal’s primary claim to notability is his work on curcumin, but as a consequence of the discovery of widespread data fraud in Aggarwal’s publications, a good part of that body of work has been discredited. Nineteen retracted articles in 7 journals is really an unprecedented story in science. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Found a list of Aggarwal's top 10 most cited publications on Google Scholar and it does not include any of the 19 retracted articles, so there is no conflict (see point #4 above). The list is now included in the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(@WikiDan61: I also very strongly object to the word used "Data Fraud" in summary. Where is the source for that? No law agency has come to that conclusion. It has to be removed immediately. Someone is trying to defame Dr. Aggarwal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 21:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Universaljustice: The source for the claim of data fraud appears to be primarily the Houston Chronicle, which stated "A prominent Houston scientist under investigation by M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for alleged manipulation of research data left the center weeks before another journal found fault with the validity of his studies." Also, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, which had published at least one of Aggarwal's papers, stated in its retraction notice:

This article has been retracted by the publisher. An investigation at MD Anderson determined that images had been reused to represent different experimental conditions. Specifically, the actin immunoblot in Fig. 1D, left, and the JNK1 immunoblot in Fig. 5B were reused. In Fig. 5D, the image showing MDA-MB-231 cells transfected with scRNA and treated with medium as well as the image showing MDA-MB-231 cells transfected with scRNA and treated with TRAIL were reused.

These two sources constitute, in this editor's opinion, sufficient evidence in reliable sources, to use the term "data manipulation". The use of the term "data fraud" may be more pejorative, but I really don't think so. If someone wishes to replace "data fraud" with "data manipulation", I wouldn't argue against that, but I would strongly argue against removal of the information altogether. Sadly, Dr. Aggarwal's years of work which were probably good and fruitful have been called into question by the revelations of this type of data manipulation. Removal of the material would be hiding important information about the man. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

References

At a quick glance on Google, several reliable sources have used the word “fraud” to describe the falsification of data in Aggarwal’s publications, and they are already cited in the article.[1][2][3][4][5]

A total of 65 of Aggarwal’s publications were identified as containing falsified data; (i.e., manipulated images, which is a form of scientific misconduct); 19 of these publications in 7 journals have been retracted for this reason to date.

As noted above, data fraud is a form of scientific misconduct; it is not a criminal offense. As such, it is not the domain of any “law agency” to act upon it; it is a matter decided upon by academic institutions and journal editorial boards. No one is trying to defame anyone and the suggestion borders on a legal threat -- dangerous waters -- so best to stay focused on editorial details. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Which institute or journal editorial board has used the word "data fraud"? Please let us know. Please do not pick the words from poor sources. Why someone keeps taking out and editing the other facts again and again as though they only want to see the negative on purpose. What kind of balanced and truthful information is this lop sided page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiDan61 How do you replace the words in summary, with all kinds of restrictions you have put on it.

While searching for novel and safe anti-inflammatory agents, his group identified more than fifty novel compounds from mother nature incluing spices, dietary agents and from Traditional Medicine that interrupt these cell-signaling pathways. These agents have been tested in various animal models and some of them in Clinical Trials. He has published almost 700 papers in peer-reviewed international journals (including Science, Nature, Cancer Cell, PNAS, Journal of Experimental Medicine, Blood, Journal of Bioogical Chenistry, Cancer Research, Journal of Immunology), invited reviews and book chapters. Dr. Aggarwal is inventor/co-inventor on over 33 patents. He has been listed as one of the most highly cited scientist by the Institute of Scientific Information in the World. His publications exhibit high-citation index with over TEN exceed 1000. His overall citation till now is 97,890 with an H-index of 164. Dr. Aggarwal has been listed among top 100 most highly influential biomedical researchers in the world. Dr. Aggarwal is currently a member of the editorial boards of 24 international journals and served as a reviewer for more than 160 journals, grant proposals and of Ph.D. theses. Dr. Aggarwal has edited 15 books (including The Molecular Targets and Therapeutic Uses of Curcumin in Health and Disease; Molecular targets and therapeutic uses of spices: Modern uses for ancient medicine )and served as Guest Editor for Biotherapy, Cancer Letters, Current Opinion in Pharmacology, Immunopathologic Diseases and Therapeutics; and Molecules (open access). He has trained over 80 Post-Doctoral Fellows and Visiting Professors from around the world. He has co-organized and served as member in many International and National Conferences/ Symposia; has started International Society of Translational Cancer Research and has delivered over 400 lectures/seminars/ keynote talks in more than 50 countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 04:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I presented the reliable sources that used the word fraud and I explained why it's usage in this article is justified on that basis, yet astonishingly, you deleted my comment.[6] Be advised that deleting other editor's comments like that is forbidden.

If you are proposing text for inclusion in the article keep in mind two basic requirements: (1) the material must be attributable to a reliable source; (2) bios cannot be written like a resume (i.e., think encyclopedia not a press release or CV). It also seems possible that you have a connection to the subject of the bio, so keep in mind WP:COI and WP:SPA. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or delete content that subverts the discussion here on the talk page as you did here.[7] Reach consensus first (see also WP:BRD). Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I am open to the possibility of using some form of alternative phrasing in the lead other than "data fraud", but don't see that such a change is necessary given that there are several sources that refer to "fraud" and it is not in any way an inaccurate description. Alternatively, or in addition, the terms "data falsification", "data fabrication", and/or "academic misconduct" could be used, as these were used by several sources.[8][9][10] Additionally, a more detailed description of the transgressions could be described. Either way, it's not going to be a whitewash.

As for expanding the a book list, that's not a problem as long as the entries are verifiable and properly formatted, and the list is reasonably succinct; maybe the top 10. Best to post them here for comment first, as the last edit made to the book section messed up the reference formatting of the article.[11] Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please also read the rules: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard." You seemed to have picked words from unreliable sources and are potentially libellous.

WikiDan61 Everytime I am removing the fraud as suggested by you, someone puts it back again. What kind of game is this? I do not buy the justification of this person from Rhode island — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 06:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Person from Rhode island: Your point number six is entirely your opinion, there is no truth or any reliable source for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 06:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Once again, there does not seem to be any content in the article that rests upon unreliable sources, nor have you attempted to point out any specific examples of which sources you consider to be unreliable. The word fraud is used in the article because, as explained to you above in the comment you tried to delete, it is used by various WP:RS. Please read WP:CONSENSUS as I suggested and do not WP:EDITWAR. Use the talk page to reach agreement instead. My point #6 does not appear in the article so arguing about whether or not it is reliably sourced serves no purpose. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Person from Rhode island: Some more rules of wikipedia; "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Your sources are newspapers articles, which try to sensasionalize facts to gain customers. I asked which institute or journal has used the word "fraud", you have not answered and keep quoting newspaper articles or comments by unreliable people as your source. Also the article says "accused" does not say "proven." I hope you know the difference. Also you know how to do all this correctly so please put rest of the books with proper formatting to be fair: Here is the list:

• Anti-inflammatory Nutraceuticals and Chronic Diseases (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology) by Subash Chandra Gupta (Editor), Sahdeo Prasad (Editor), Bharat B. Aggarwal (Editor)
• Inflammation, Lifestyle and Chronic Diseases: The Silent Link (Oxidative Stress and Disease) Jul 27, 2011 by Bharat B. Aggarwal and Sunil Krishnan
• Immunonutrition: Interactions of Diet, Genetics, and Inflammation Mar 17, 2014 by Bharat B. Aggarwal and David Heber
• Molecular Targets and Therapeutic Uses of Spices: Modern Uses for Ancient Medicine May 18, 2009 by Bharat B. Aggarwal and Ajaikumar B. Kunnumakkara
• The Molecular Targets and Therapeutic Uses of Curcumin in Health and Disease (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology)May 18, 2007 by Bharat B. Aggarwal and Young-Joon Surh
• Inflammation and Cancer (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology)May 13, 2014 by Bharat B. Aggarwal and Bokyung Sung
• Multi-Targeted Approach to Treatment of Cancer 2015th Edition by Varsha Gandhi (Editor), Kapil Mehta (Editor), Rajesh Grover (Editor), Sen Pathak (Editor), Bharat B. Aggarwal (Editor)
• Curry Powder to Clinical Significance2015 by Muhammed Majeed PhD and Bharat B Aggarwal PhD
• Resveratrol in Health and Disease (Oxidative Stress and Disease) [Print Replica] Kindle Edition by Bharat B. Aggarwal (Editor), Shishir Shishodia (Editor)ASIN: B008HZ8H8W

Tumor Necrosis Factors: Structure, Function, and Mechanism of Action (Immunology Series)Sep 1991 by Bharat B. Aggarwal and Jan Vilcek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"Person from Rhode island: Some more rules of wikipedia; Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively…etc…”

First, I am not "person from Rhode Island". You can refer to me by my full user name, Rhode, or RIR. Secondly, yes, I am well aware of WPs policy on bios. The bio is not written like a tabloid nor is it sensationalistic. All of the material presented is reliably sourced and verifiable. You seem to be under the impression that this bio cannot present any material that is critical or deals with any controversy, but that is simply not the case.

WP:BLPSTYLE: “Criticism...should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.”

WP:LEAD: “The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.”

“Your sources are newspapers articles, which try to sensasionalize facts to gain customers.”

Newspapers are considered to be reliable sources. Suggesting that everything reported by them is by nature sensationalistic and that they are therefore unreliable is simply not consistent with WP policy.

“I asked which institute or journal has used the word "fraud", you have not answered and keep quoting newspaper articles or comments by unreliable people as your source.”

The question is not relevant. The only pertinent question is whether or not reliable sources have used the term, and in fact several have (i.e., newspapers are considered reliable sources). Keep in mind that data manipulation/data falsification/data fabrication, which is unquestionably what was involved in this case, are in fact considered forms of data fraud. I also offered potential alternative phrasing,[12] to which you did not reply.

“Also you know how to do all this correctly so please put rest of the books with proper formatting to be fair: Here is the list:”

Um, maybe you don’t realize it but I am not a valet. Nonetheless, if you provide complete bibliographic information and properly formatted entries with book title, authors/editors, publisher, place and date of publication (see [[13]] and the example at the bottom of this page) ISBN#, and a link for verification, I will be happy to add them to the book section on your behalf. You can setup a WP:SANDBOX to work on it and drop me a note on my talk page when it's done if you would like me to give it a lookpver.Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, unfortunately I am not computer expert, I do not know how to navigate everything in Wikipedia. What potential alternative phrasing have you offered? Please tell me again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 17:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No expertise required. Just click on the blue highlighted hyperlink that appeared at the end of my comment (i.e., #12). It's disheartening that you seem to not be reading my replies even when I re-post links to them. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, I am trying to learn. It will take time. you said in your earlier post, " the terms "data falsification", could be used, as these were used by several sources." Ok then, until we resolve it further please replace the word "fraud" with "data falsification". That is fair and won't be white wash as you put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I understand; it takes time to get up to speed. As for use of the term fraud, I think you may may have misinterpreted me. I said that there was no compelling reason to change it because the term is amply supported by WP:RS and it's accurate, and consensus so far seems to support its use.[14] You haven't presented any compelling reason why it should be changed; it seems to merely be your personal preference (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JDL).

I think what would ultimately be useful is addition of a line in the lead that explains exactly what the fraud entailed (i.e., submitting falsified/doctored images, fabricating data, etc.) since most readers may not be familiar with what "data falsification: really means. A line somewhere explaining that many of the retracted articles had been widely cited would be a good addition too. All in good time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, Here is my argument. Your sentence read as "7 medical journals were retracted over concern about data fraud and manipulation". The journals did not make that exact statement. There were image duplication and falsification happened because of that, but no where it said that falsification happened because of "fraud"; that word is coined by newspaper articles. Well, even in the newspaper it is "alleged fraud". It is only "alleged" not proven. Fraud word signify intention to deceive, and that is not proven by any means at this stage. We do not know under what circumstances the images got duplicated. That is up the people who are investigating to figure out, as it requires lot of expertise and digging. So as you can see it is just not "personal preference" as you have indicated. I am trying to be fair here. If this is a living person's biography than you have to be fair and sensitive, and not use the words that do not give the correct import of the situation. Interestingly this is called a biography of a living person. How can just few people who do not know the person well, write a biography based on newspaper articles. That will never give a overall and accurate picture of a person's life time achievements, contributions, and mistakes made in the process, and lessons learned. I also saw some comments made on this page by WikiDan61 that "Bear in mind that Aggarwal’s primary claim to notability is his work on curcumin, but as a consequence of the discovery of widespread data fraud in Aggarwal’s publications, a good part of that body of work has been discredited." That kind of statements is not true because Dr. Aggarwal's scope of work is well beyond Curcumin. Also the good part of body of work is not discredited. This is 17 papers that are retracted that is mentioned here out of which 2 are not from his lab, 2 were withdrawn, that means out of about 700 papers, at least 683 are sound. Also the overall conclusion of the papers have not been affected of these papers, because the conclusions are verified by many universities labs around the world. You see now the danger of you putting the word "fraud". WikiDan61 already thinks it is fraud when it is not even proven. I think somewhere he mentioned that because of Curcumin he got the wikipage. I do not think that Dr. Aggarwal asked to make this page or he got this page because of his work on Curcumin. May by you can shed light on why he got a wikipedia page? Also if content of this page are open to be edited by anyone who gives correct logic and arguments and references, than the editors of this page have to be patient and receptive to a newcomer on this page, and hear his or her voice also. If this is called a biography than one should not dwell and exaggerate the negatives only but give a balanced picture, good and bad, so people can learn about someone's life accurately. I know you offered to put rest of the books here, if I give you the details. However I was amazed that a only a non-scientific book which is reletively new is mentioned, and not rest, which are scientifically lot more significant. I know I made some errors in editing because I did not know how to go about it. Now I am learning so please be patient. I hope I have made my points clear why you should replace the word "fraud". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please organize your comments into paragraphs indented using colons as it is daunting to read a huge a block of run-on text. Sources not only referred to the events as fraud but several of them, including the journals themselves, referred to it as data fabrication and data falsification. These terms do not refer to accidents but rather willful deception.

As I said before, the use of the term data fraud is not inaccurate and is supported by consensus at this point, but a more detailed description of what the fraud involved may be warranted (i.e., submitting falsified/fabricated data). All in good time.

Also please refrain from WP:SOAP. Our interest as editors is strictly on editorial issues, verifiable sources, etc., not personal opinions. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for airing of grievances of original research. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, (1) precisely, your choice of word is "Your personal opinion". You are trying to be the judge and jury here. You are bringing new words like "willful deception". Who gave you the right to make up these words in wikipedia in a living person's biography? (2)You are misusing the words to give your preconceived opinion and trying to stop others from expressing what they think is right. You somehow you think that your words are the final verdict. (3) You are putting your own meaning from the words used in media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, Also according your own source: WP:SOAP please refer to: "Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." I see a lot of that going on here, putting your own meaning and twisting the words to put forward only what you want to portray and not at all a neutral and balanced point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Universaljustice: Rhode Island Red is not trying to be judge and jury. They are using the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to try to guide the contents of this article. Please remember to assume good faith of your fellow editors. In this case, the term "willful deception" arises from Aggarwal's actions: he didn't make a mistake, he intentionally manipulated data in order to justify the result that he wished for in his papers, and he didn't do it once, he did it in 17 different papers. If this had been a simple mistake, then the retractions would have been labeled as the result of data errors, but they were instead labeled as the result of "data manipulation". Manipulation implies a willful act, not just a simple mistake. As in the past, it has been suggested that the term "data manipulation" could be used in the article, but to my mind (and to RIR's as well, apparently) the two terms ("data manipulation" and "data fraud") are interchangeable as both imply a willful alteration of data in order to back up one's conclusions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Universaljustice:, I will remind you once again to focus your comments on editorial issues and article content (see WP:TPG and WP:ATPD). WikiDan61 is reiterating what I have said about the term data fraud. As for "data manipulation", sources have gone much further than that in identifying the image manipulation as a fraudulent act. One of the journal retractions states the following:

"A research misconduct investigation at the Medical College of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin-Madison has determined that data presented in Figs. 1 and 2 were falsified. Therefore, this article is being retracted by the American Physiological Society in agreement with the authors."[15]

This is consistent with many of the other sources that referred to acts of "data falsification" and "data fabrication". By no means can one construe these acts to be accidental/inadvertent errors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Modified Text For Lead

Here is what I would consider reasonable replacement text for the part in the lead that now mentions data fraud and manipulation:

In 2012, MD Anderson launched a review of Aggarwal’s research after the federal government notified them of allegations of fraud by academic whistle-blowers in as many as 65 published papers, one of which had been retracted by the journal that published it. Several more of Aggarwal's publications were subsequently retracted after they were found to contain data images that had been reused from earlier publications and manipulated to represent different results. By August 2016, 18 research articles published by Aggarwal (in 7 scientific journals) had been retracted.

Comments? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

References

WikiDan61, You are completely out of line for making statements on this wikipedia page like, "In this case, the term "willful deception" arises from Aggarwal's actions: he didn't make a mistake, he intentionally manipulated data in order to justify the result that he wished for in his papers, and he didn't do it once, he did it in 17 different papers. If this had been a simple mistake, then the retractions would have been labeled as the result of data errors, but they were instead labeled as the result of "data manipulation".In this case, the term "willful deception" arises from Aggarwal's actions: he didn't make a mistake, he intentionally manipulated data in order to justify the result that he wished for in his papers, and he didn't do it once, he did it in 17 different papers. If this had been a simple mistake, then the retractions would have been labeled as the result of data errors, but they were instead labeled as the result of "data manipulation". (1) Now you are being judge and jury. I do not know how Wikipedia is allowing editors to make such statements (2) It is one thing to take some announcement and present it here as it appears in your references, but now you are interpreting law. (3)The public does not know your qualification to tell the world what Dr. Aggarwal did or did not do. The papers that are retracted have many authors and putting the entire blame on Dr. Aggarwal is mind boggling. (4)The figures are not even prepared by him for your information. (5) You were earlier teaching me all the rules of wikipedia, and now you yourself are breaking them, by not doing neutral reporting but constantly judging a person with your own interpretations as mentioned above. (6) For your information according to federal law, while the investigation is going on, it has to be confidential to protect the person, but thanks to media for making it public prematurely.

RIR, your latest replacement text seems more neutral than what you had before. (Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 00:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I will await further comment. In the meantime, please stop bickering about matters unrelated to editorial issues; comment on content, not other editors. Take a breath and be calm, civil and constructive in your responses. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, Everything here is related to editorial issues. You think what you write is comment on content, and what others say is bickering. Watch your own language and please stop putting your own words and judgement on the page and stop this lopsided reporting on living person biography and put your energies elsewhere in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 05:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I am simply trying to help you avoid confrontation and difficulties in dealing with fellow editors. What I told you is fundamental to how WP operates -- refer to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and "comment on content, not on the contributor". If you'd rather ignore it and burn bridges, that's your choice, but I'd much rather see you stay as a WP contributor and comport yourself appropriately. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Since there was no further comment on the proposed changes to the lead and a vague consensus in support, I went ahead and made the modifications.[16] Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, (1)I have one important question and serious objection in your latest modification, You made a statement "Aggarwal's publications were subsequently retracted after they were found to contain data images that had been reused from earlier publications and manipulated to represent different results." I myself read the retraction notices, I found it said the word "reused" so use of that word is fine in your reporting. I could not find the word "reused from earlier publications" and I did not find the words "manipulated to represent different result". So please remove your own interpretations of the retraction notices. (2) I also read under the rules on wikipedia page that blogs are not reliable source for living person's biography, and "retraction watch" is a blog so it cannot be used here on this page. Please modify and correct your sentence in summary lines and remove the references of retraction watch in this article as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 05:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It would have been nice had you raised those objections when the text was first proposed (and you voiced your support for it). Nonetheless, every single one of the seven Biochemical Pharmacology retraction notices did in fact state the images had been manipulated to represent different results; e.g., “images…were reused to represent different experimental conditions.” Your objection regarding the text "reused to represent different experimental conditions" is reasonable. The retraction notices indicate that the images were reused (and manipulated) from within the same publication; not from previous publications. The lead has now been modified accordingly (the words “from previous publications” have been removed".

Blogs can be acceptable sources under some circumstances, such as when the writers are identified and are recognized professionals in the field in which they write, which is the case with Retraction Watch.[17] They can also be acceptable when writing about subjects that have not been widely covered in the mainstream press or other sources, as in this case. In addition, the blog was cited by the newspaper articles that covered the story, which makes it even more acceptable. And lastly, the blog is not making a claim that cannot be readily verified. The citation supported the claim that 18 articles were retracted by 7 journals, which is a fact that’s easily verifiable simply by looking at the list of the 18 retracted articles. So even if the source were deemed unacceptable, the text that it was cited in support of would stay without alteration.

By the way, please remember to sign your posts using 4 tildes. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, I am sorry but I strongly disagree with your use of word "manipulated". You are making up this word on your own, the retraction notice do not use this word at all. Under the strict guideline of living person's biography you cannot use that word to express your opinion. I also strongly disagree with with Blog as acceptable source, it cannot be under any circumstances for living person on wikipedia. I read the rules also. Please read the rules again for "Living People" the standards are very high and strict. You and other editors cannot assume anything as you please and misinterpret like you did before. If the images were from the same paper it is highly likely that they were duplicated by mistake as oppose to what you were suggesting. There are about 100 images produced for each paper and they look very very similar, and human error can happen by carelessness, that is not manipulation, and you do not know that, so please remove the word, "manipulated" at once. I do not know how to sign but you know who it is from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 01:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Universaljustice: The retraction notices may or may not have mentioned "data manipulation", but in several cases they did use the phrase "data integrity has become questionable" (a very fine difference to the point of not being different at all) and several of the reliable sources (including The Scientist, India West and others) did use the words "manipulate/manipulated/manipulation" and "data" in sentences such that a rephrasing as "data manipulation" is reasonable. Further, given your extremely strident argumentation in this regard, I have to ask what is your connection to Dr Aggarwal? I have trouble believing that a dispassionate third party would be arguing so vehemently in this matter. P.S. would you please learn to sign your posts? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

“RIR, I am sorry but I strongly disagree with your use of word "manipulated". You are making up this word on your own, the retraction notice do not use this word at all. Under the strict guideline of living person's biography you cannot use that word to express your opinion.”

@Universaljustice: The most innocent explanation for your oversight is that you are not reading the sources cited in the article, and that's problematic. At least six of the retraction notices, published in Molecular Pharmacology, Journal of Biological Chemistry, and Biochemical Pharmacology, use the word “manipulated” or “manipulation”, [18][19][20][21][22][23] as did the reporting on the retractions in The Scientist, [24][25] and Biotechniques.[26]

“I also strongly disagree with with (sic) Blog as acceptable source”

There is no blanket prohibition on blogs per se, but on self-published sources with no oversight. Retraction Watch is published and overseen by The Center For Scientific Integrity, a reputable organization with a board of directors full of reputable scientists and funded by a MacArthur grant. Editorial oversight is exercised by Oransky and Marcus, who are both experienced professional scientific editors. In fact, they are arguably the leading experts in the US when it comes to scientific retractions, and are often quoted as such by major media when a retraction hits the news. Retraction Watch has been featured as an expert source in the best newspapers and scientific journals in the world, such as New York Times,[27] Nature, [28] Nature Medicine, [29] Science, [30] and many others. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP:SPS has explicit exceptions for.

Furthermore, there is no debating that 18 articles were retracted, which is the statement for which Retraction Watch is cited. All one has to do is count the numbered list[31] – it includes 18 retractions. It’s an incontrovertible fact. So there’s not even the faintest reason to doubt that what Retraction Watch reported was true.

"I do not know how to sign but you know who it is from."

This squiggle (~) on your keyboard is called a tilde; type 4 of them at the end of your posts; your digital signature with a timestamp will be generated automatically. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Further, if your keyboard does not have a tilde (some international variants may not), there is a button at the top of the edit box into which you type ever comment. It's the third icon from the right, and looks like a pencil writing something. Click on that button to generate your signature. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiDan61, you said, "Further, given your extremely strident argumentation in this regard, I have to ask what is your connection to Dr Aggarwal?". Please revel your identity before asking mine. You could be anyone, may be even a representative of a pharma company to try to discredit natural products because there is not much money to be made with them. Why, may I ask, are you so much interested in wikipedia page for Bharat Aggarwal? Why did the page came to existence right after the blog retraction watch? Are you one of the bloggers from there? Blog is a blog, so please do not glorify "Retraction Watch". Anyone can go in there and use any hateful comments and try to destroy others for personal reasons. You cannot have double standards. The whole time you are telling me different rules that I must follow in wikipedia, so please follow the rules yourself also, and remove references from blogs that are pasted all over the page.

You also said, "The retraction notices may or may not have mentioned "data manipulation", but in several cases they did use the phrase "data integrity has become questionable" (a very fine difference to the point of not being different at all)" So please stick with what the retraction notice says and stop putting your own words in there. Even fine difference is a difference. May be not to you, but for correct reporting, stick with what what is in retraction notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 05:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Universaljustice: If you look at my record of contributions to Wikipedia, you'll see that I have a wide range of contributions on a wide range of topics, whereas your sole purpose at Wikipedia has been the defense of this article. You are what we at Wikipedia call as single purpose account, which is often an indication that the account holder is in some manner connected to the topic they are editing about. As to why this article came into being after the Retraction Watch blog posting, I suspect that is directly due to the fact that Dr Aggarwal became the subject of general news coverage based on his attempt to sue Retraction Watch. Prior to that event, Dr Aggarwal was not a name that the general public would have known. But that event, for better or worse, earned Dr Aggarwal sufficient notability for someone to create a Wikipedia page about him.

The only reason I got involved in this page is because I noted in my activity as a recent change patroller that this page had been the subject of some disagreement, so I chose to investigate the nature of the disagreement. I have no personal interest in Dr Aggarwal and had never heard of him prior to my first involvement with this page on 10 October 2016.

Your point that "a blog is a blog" is incorrect. Some blogs are just one person and a keyboard. Other blogs (such as Retraction Watch) are an outlet of a larger reputable organization, such as the Center for Scientific Integrity, in this particular case. Such a blog can be assumed to have an editorial review process sufficient to use it as a reliable source.

As RIR has pointed out (they did a more thorough search of the retraction notices than I), several of the retraction notices did use the phrase "data manipulation" so I am disinclined to change that wording in the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

“Please revel your identity”

@Universaljustice: You should not be asking editors to reveal personal information (see [32] and [33]). It’s one thing to ask if someone has a WP:COI, and if they do, they must be transparent about it, but again, do not ask editors to reveal their identity. Concerns about WP:COI can be posted at the COI noticeboard.

"You could be anyone, may be even a representative of a pharma company to try to discredit natural products because there is not much money to be made with them."

Wikidan has said nothing to discredit natural products; if there is any discrediting, it comes from the retraction notices themselves. Be advised that what you wrote constitutes a personal attack, which is not consistent with WP policy.

"remove references from blogs that are pasted all over the page"

Your concern in that regard has already been addressed.[34]

"So please stick with what the retraction notice says and stop putting your own words in there…stick with what what (sic) is in retraction notice."

Again, that concern has already been addressed. The sources do say that the images were “manipulated”, so it is inappropriate to continue insisting that this wording must be changed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR and WikiDan61, The only reason I had asked the identity was in response to WikiDan61 asking me about my identity. For some reason it looks like you can tell me all the rules and ask me anything but when I do same to you, both of you get upset and offended. I have no reason to do any personal attach and that is not my intention, but if as a person I see lopsided and inappropriate reporting on wikipedia on a Living Biography than I have a same right as you to discuss it. As far as coming on Wikipedia first time, well everyone will have a first time including you WikiDan61, we all have to start somewhere. There were few errors that you did change after I pointed them out. Since Wikipedia is open space, you cannot have monopoly over it, and discourage other editors to step in, by being so judgmental.

Also WikiDan61 you could not be more wrong to say that, because Dr. Aggarwal threatened to sue retraction watch he got the Wikipedia page. Millions of people sue each other in America, they do not get a Wikipedia page for that. It is not illegal to defend yourself in America. Since you may not know about scientific investigations, the fact is Federal government rule is until the investigation is over, everything is kept strictly confidential by ORI and the investigating institute, to protect the scientist. It is sad that blog like "Retraction Watch" has broken that rule by constantly calling and e mailing and reporting on it while the process is going on, probably to get some cheap publicity. And you saw the result, even you have become extremely judgmental. You can check on that rule on your own and confirm it. Retraction watch started blogging long before any retraction took place. Wouldn't any one in that situation threaten to sue when the rules are broken and it is hurting someone? Also for some reason you think that Dr. Aggarwal's scientific achievement started because of Curcumin, fact is, he and his team had already discovered TNF long before, which is big scientific breakthrough.

I still have to learn how to put rest of the books on the page, as none of you are interested to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Universaljustice: Wikidan noticed that you are an WP:SPA editor and asked whether you had a connection with the subject matter -- i.e., complying with WP:COI (editors are expected to disclose COIs). That's not the same as explicitly asking an editor to reveal their identity. I realize you are a newcomer and I am trying very hard to steer you in the right direction, so when I do, just take it to heart OK? Diplomacy goes a long way. Going forward let's all please only use the Talk page for its intended purpose as per WP:TPG: "Article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article (or) as platforms for their personal views on a subject". I already gave an explicit offer to help you with the book list; you never replied or provided what I had asked for.[35] The offer is still open, but I can't get to it any sooner than Sunday so take your time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

RIR, Thank you for your offer. I will try to provide you with the information best way that I can; I still do not know exactly how to do this but I will certainly try. The only other comment I have is that I am also interested only in improvement in the Article, and nothing else. Sometimes I have to give explanation for the comments you or WikiDan61 make, I feel I have no choice but to explain because I see lot of assumptions especially by WikiDan61 about Dr. Aggarwal and his career, and that does not reflect a neutral point of view that wikipedia demands. (His comments do go beyond what is reported in your so called sources). Everything that I am discussing is regarding "Bharat Aggarwal", after all, this page is solely about him; and I am also not interested at all to go "Off Topic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 05:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The article was created as I was slowly working alphabetically through the influential biomedical scientist list, cited in this article, filling in the red links. Aggarwal was I think the fourth bio I created in this effort. There was no Retraction Watch or pharma inspired conspiracy. Fences&Windows 23:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Resignation of Dr. Aggarwal

Dr. Aggarwal retired on his own accord, there was no pressure from MD Anderson or elsewhere to resign. He is at retirement age and retired from MD Anderson to pursue other interests. Who ever is put that in the Article is wrong. The reference provided does not mention that at all and it has been put there as the person's own opinion. Please remove the sentence that says he resigned under pressure, it was retirement NOT resignation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Aggarawal is a proven fraud who could not maintain his academic record or credibility to obtain grants in a university setting. Allowing him to resign was a "saving face" option for MD Anderson. He was lucky not to be fired outright. The article uses a secondary source to support this, and will remain that way until proven otherwise. --Zefr (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Zefr: This is page on living biography. Please keep your personal opinion to yourself. Stick to the rules of Wikipedia. Secondary sources and weak sources DO NOT COUNT. If you do not know the facts keep the fiction of your imagination to yourself and do not use insulting language on public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked the reference provided it says, "Bharat B. Aggarwal retired from MD Anderson Cancer Center on December 31, 2015.". Please replace the word resigned with retired. From your own reference it is retired and not resigned. Let us keep the facts straight on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universaljustice (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• From the reliable sources that are presently being used in this article:

In a statement, M.D. Anderson subsequently confirmed to the Chronicle that Aggarwal had retired

A cancer researcher who recently retired from MD Anderson Cancer Center

This week, the Houston Chronicle covered Aggarwal’s retirement and retractions...

The now-retired Aggarwal

Bharat Aggarwal, an MD Anderson Cancer Center researcher who retired at the end of 2015.

Aggarwal is no longer working at MD Anderson, according to a statement we just received from the institution: Bharat B. Aggarwal retired from MD Anderson Cancer Center on December 31, 2015. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

After giving all the information to support the word "retirement", the editors of this page are still not fixing the wrong reporting. They need to remove the part "resigned under pressure" to retired from MD Anderson. Also some people are giving their personal opinions rather than sticking to the reliable news sources.

I'd suggest a note at WP:BLPN. --joe decker^talk 21:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bharat Aggarwal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150214014920/http://highlycited.com/isihighlycited.htm to http://highlycited.com/isihighlycited.htm
• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6t_CQiYCwksJ:www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/M-D-Anderson-scientist-accused-of-falsifying-6865704.php+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20161010052727/http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/M-D-Anderson-scientist-accused-of-falsifying-6865704.php on http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/M-D-Anderson-scientist-accused-of-falsifying-6865704.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"Anti-inflammation Research Institute"

Despite on-line searches, I am unable to find any evidence that the "Anti-inflammation Research Institute" exists, or indeed ever existed, anywhere other than within Aggarwal's own mind. No web page (a fact earlier reported and cited in the article), no address, no phone number, no court records. Nothing. Examples of Aggarwal affiliating himself with such an "Institute" (e.g., the Times of India article) hardly qualify as positive confirmation. With regards to editing this article, however, I am uncertain how to proceed. No independent reliable sources exist to support the claim that this "Institute" is real, yet no sources exist to positively establish the opposite. I am thus compelled to simply remove the content, and sources, related to this "Institute," and I will do so shortly. Please restore the content if it can be supported by any independent, reliable sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)