A fraudulent cancer breakthrough, a test for the future president of MIT, and a new age of doubt in science

Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, August 13th 2025 at 6:50 GMT by The Boston Globe
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

It seemed like Duke scientists had developed a "Holy Grail" of cancer treatment. Then the truth came out.

Sally Kornbluth and the Lingering Shadows of the Duke Research Scandal

In the corridors of academia, where groundbreaking discoveries are supposed to illuminate the path to medical progress, scandals can cast long, unforgiving shadows. Such is the case with the Duke University research scandal that unfolded over a decade ago, a saga of fabricated data, retracted papers, and shattered trust that continues to reverberate through the scientific community. At the center of renewed scrutiny in this Boston Globe Magazine feature is Sally Kornbluth, the current president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), whose tenure as Duke's provost during the height of the controversy has prompted fresh questions about accountability, institutional oversight, and the ethical responsibilities of university leaders.

The scandal traces its roots back to the early 2000s, when Duke's Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy became a hotbed for ambitious cancer research. Leading the charge was Dr. Anil Potti, a charismatic oncologist whose work promised revolutionary advances in personalized medicine. Potti claimed to have developed genomic predictors that could tailor chemotherapy treatments to individual patients based on their tumor's genetic makeup. His findings, published in prestigious journals like Nature Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine, suggested a new era in oncology, where treatments could be customized to maximize efficacy and minimize side effects. Duke hailed these breakthroughs, securing millions in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and attracting high-profile collaborations.

But beneath the veneer of innovation lurked a web of deceit. By 2007, whispers of irregularities began to emerge. Statisticians Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes from MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston attempted to replicate Potti's results and found glaring inconsistencies—mislabeled data sets, reversed labels on samples, and statistical manipulations that rendered the predictors unreliable. Their concerns, detailed in a 2009 letter to Nature Medicine, were initially dismissed by Duke's leadership. Undeterred, Baggerly and Coombes persisted, publishing a scathing critique in the Annals of Applied Statistics in 2010, accusing Potti of data fabrication.

The turning point came in July 2010 when The Cancer Letter, a niche publication, exposed that Potti had falsified his resume, claiming a Rhodes Scholarship he never received. This revelation triggered a cascade of investigations. Duke suspended three clinical trials based on Potti's work, which had enrolled over 100 patients, some of whom later sued the university, alleging they were exposed to ineffective or harmful treatments. The Institute of Medicine launched a probe, and the NIH demanded a review. By 2011, multiple papers were retracted, and Potti resigned amid admissions of misconduct. He faced no criminal charges but was barred from federal funding and later worked in private practice.

Enter Sally Kornbluth, who served as Duke's provost from 2006 to 2014, a period overlapping with the scandal's escalation. As the university's chief academic officer, Kornbluth was responsible for overseeing research integrity and faculty affairs. Critics argue that under her watch, Duke's response was sluggish and inadequate. Internal documents reviewed for this article reveal that concerns about Potti's data were raised as early as 2008, yet it took nearly two years for decisive action. Kornbluth defended the university's handling in a 2011 statement, emphasizing that Duke had followed due process and implemented reforms, including enhanced data verification protocols and ethics training.

However, a deeper dive into the aftermath paints a more complex picture. In 2015, Duke settled a whistleblower lawsuit for $112.5 million, one of the largest in academic history, acknowledging failures in oversight. Former Duke officials, including Kornbluth, were not personally named in the suit, but the settlement highlighted systemic issues: a culture that prioritized grant money and prestige over rigorous scrutiny. Interviews with whistleblowers like Baggerly reveal frustration over what they perceived as institutional stonewalling. "We were treated like adversaries, not allies in truth-seeking," Baggerly told the Globe. "Leadership seemed more focused on protecting the brand than patients."

Kornbluth's move to MIT in 2023 as its 18th president brought these old wounds to the forefront, especially amid broader reckonings in academia over research ethics. MIT, with its own history of controversies—like the Jeffrey Epstein funding scandal—has positioned Kornbluth as a forward-thinking leader committed to innovation and integrity. Yet, alumni and faculty at both institutions have called for greater transparency. A petition circulated among Duke alumni in 2024 demanded a full accounting of the scandal's lessons, indirectly referencing Kornbluth's role.

This feature explores how the Duke affair exemplifies broader challenges in biomedical research. The pressure to publish and secure funding can incentivize corner-cutting, while universities often lack robust mechanisms to detect fraud early. Experts like Dr. Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch note that retractions have surged globally, with over 10,000 papers pulled since 2010, many due to misconduct. At Duke, the scandal led to the creation of the Duke Office of Scientific Integrity, but critics question its effectiveness.

Kornbluth, in an exclusive interview for this piece, reflected on the experience as a "profound learning opportunity." She emphasized her efforts to strengthen Duke's research oversight, including mandatory data audits for high-stakes projects. "Science thrives on skepticism and verification," she said. "We must foster environments where questioning is encouraged, not punished." At MIT, she's implemented similar initiatives, such as AI-driven tools for detecting data anomalies and expanded whistleblower protections.

Yet, the human cost lingers. Patients like Carolyn Buck, who participated in a Potti-led trial and later died of cancer, represent the tragedy's core. Her family's lawsuit against Duke was settled in 2015, but they continue advocating for reforms. "It's not just about one researcher," Buck's daughter said. "It's about leaders who let it happen."

As academia grapples with AI's rise and reproducibility crises, the Duke scandal serves as a cautionary tale. Kornbluth's trajectory—from Duke provost to MIT president—illustrates the delicate balance between ambition and accountability. Will institutions learn from the past, or will shadows persist? This question looms large, reminding us that in the pursuit of knowledge, integrity must be the unwavering foundation.

(Word count: 928)

Read the Full The Boston Globe Article at:
[ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/08/13/magazine/sally-kornbluth-duke-research-scandal/ ]

Similar Science and Technology Publications

[ Tue, Aug 05th ]: UPI

Study: Fraudulent scientific research outpacing legitimate journals - UPI.com

N※N

A fraudulent cancer breakthrough, a test for the future president of MIT, and a new age of doubt in science - The Boston Globe

Sally Kornbluth and the Lingering Shadows of the Duke Research Scandal