HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - Gene-Guided Chemotherapy Research Questioned

gdpawel · 05-12-2011, 04:19 PM

By Defending Potti, Duke Officials Become Target Of Charges Of Institutional Failure. Duke Officials Decline To Provide Details Of Probe. Biostatisticians Write To Varmus Asking NCI To Investigate. The Lancet Oncology Issues “Expression Of Concern” Over Paper. Duke Insiders Allege Intimidation By Administration. Also in this issue: ODAC Votes To Strip Breast Cancer Indication From Avastin.

http://www.cancerletter.com/downloads/20100803_10

Ninety percent of biomarkers studies are total crap. And this is so, even if the logistical, study conduct issues are carried out flawlessly. Sloppiness a la Potti/Nevins leads to 100 percent crap. But it’s not just Potti/Nevins. The whole concept of using molecular signatures of any kind to do anything beyond the most straightforward of cases is so flawed that everyone should have seen the problems at the beginning. A beautiful biological technology is no different than a beautiful computer technology. It’s not worth much without some very good apps, and personalized molecular medicine is still waiting for its first killer app.

“100 Percent Crap”

Donald Berry, chairman of the Department of Biostatistics and head of the Division of Quantitative Sciences at MD Anderson, said the Duke scandal [i.e. Potti] puts the entire field of genomics at risk.

(Berry then said the following):

“About 10 years ago, I read in Newsweek that the high-paying, glamorous job of the new millenium was bioinformatics,” Berry, one of the statisticians who signed the letter to Varmus, said in an email. “We were going to cure diseases in the near time frame. (Francis Collins was at the forefront of pushing this attitude.) My reaction was that we didn’t know how to handle one gene (and we still don’t), never mind 20,000 genes.

“It was clear then, and it is clear now, that false-positive leads pop up all over the place and we have to keep banging them back down, as in ‘Whack-a-Mole.’ I say ‘we.’ Unfortunately, few people understand this, although the plethora of unconfirmable observations gets people asking, ‘Why?’ I’ve been saying for years that 90 percent of biomarkers studies are crap. And this is so even if the logistical, study conduct issues are carried out flawlessly. Sloppiness a la Potti/Nevins leads to 100 percent crap.”

05-12-2011, 04:19 PM	#16
gdpawel Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,080	The Cancer Letter July 23, 2010, Vol. 36 No. 28 By Defending Potti, Duke Officials Become Target Of Charges Of Institutional Failure. Duke Officials Decline To Provide Details Of Probe. Biostatisticians Write To Varmus Asking NCI To Investigate. The Lancet Oncology Issues “Expression Of Concern” Over Paper. Duke Insiders Allege Intimidation By Administration. Also in this issue: ODAC Votes To Strip Breast Cancer Indication From Avastin. http://www.cancerletter.com/downloads/20100803_10 Ninety percent of biomarkers studies are total crap. And this is so, even if the logistical, study conduct issues are carried out flawlessly. Sloppiness a la Potti/Nevins leads to 100 percent crap. But it’s not just Potti/Nevins. The whole concept of using molecular signatures of any kind to do anything beyond the most straightforward of cases is so flawed that everyone should have seen the problems at the beginning. A beautiful biological technology is no different than a beautiful computer technology. It’s not worth much without some very good apps, and personalized molecular medicine is still waiting for its first killer app. “100 Percent Crap” Donald Berry, chairman of the Department of Biostatistics and head of the Division of Quantitative Sciences at MD Anderson, said the Duke scandal [i.e. Potti] puts the entire field of genomics at risk. (Berry then said the following): “About 10 years ago, I read in Newsweek that the high-paying, glamorous job of the new millenium was bioinformatics,” Berry, one of the statisticians who signed the letter to Varmus, said in an email. “We were going to cure diseases in the near time frame. (Francis Collins was at the forefront of pushing this attitude.) My reaction was that we didn’t know how to handle one gene (and we still don’t), never mind 20,000 genes. “It was clear then, and it is clear now, that false-positive leads pop up all over the place and we have to keep banging them back down, as in ‘Whack-a-Mole.’ I say ‘we.’ Unfortunately, few people understand this, although the plethora of unconfirmable observations gets people asking, ‘Why?’ I’ve been saying for years that 90 percent of biomarkers studies are crap. And this is so even if the logistical, study conduct issues are carried out flawlessly. Sloppiness a la Potti/Nevins leads to 100 percent crap.”