Ranjit Chandra

Dr. Ranjit Kumar Chandra, OC, MD, is a world-renowned expert in the field of nutrition and immunology who has been accused of committing scientific fraud by the British Medical Journal. His alleged fraud was also the subject of a 2006 documentary by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Controversy
In the summer of 2002, Dr. Chandra retired from Memorial University of Newfoundland under a cloud of suspicion. He had published a study in the September 2001 edition of Nutrition claiming his patented multivitamin formula could reverse memory problems in people over the age of 65. However, the same study had been previously submitted to the British Medical Journal in 2000 and rejected after a review by a statistical expert, who stated that the study had "all the hallmarks of having been completely invented". The BMJ asked Memorial University to investigate. When they, too, found that the study could not possibly have been completed as claimed, they asked Chandra to produce his data. He refused, claiming the university had lost it, and resigned, avoiding disciplinary action and later even going so far as threatening a lawsuit against his accusers.

The claims made in his study were so amazing that they garnered a lot of mainstream attention. This actually turned out to be bad for Chandra because when the New York Times published a story about it, several other world-renowned scientists began looking at his published results and realised it was completely fabricated. By 2005, his vitamin study had been completely debunked and retracted, which led to further investigations into his previous research and published studies.

In the late 1980s, Dr. Chandra was hired to do a study for US manufacturer of Isomil and Similac, Ross Pharmaceuticals. Ross wanted to know if their formula could help babies avoid allergies. It was Chandra's nurse, Marilyn Harvey's job to find 288 newborns in the St. John's, Newfoundland area whose parents had allergies and who were willing to participate in the research. Nestle (Good Start) and Mead Johnson had also contacted him to do similar studies on their baby formulas. After just about one year, Marilyn Harvey had not even come close to finding 288 newborns for the Ross study, but mysteriously, Dr. Chandra published the Nestle study, and later the other studies as well.

The results of the three studies results were even more remarkable. In spite of nearly identical ingredients, Chandra found that the Nestle and Mead Johnson formulas could, in fact, protect infants from allergies, but the Ross Pharmaceuticals formula did not. When asked to explain this discrepancy, Chandra claimed the Ross study had not been designed right and he had not been paid enough to do it properly, even though he had participated in the design of all the studies.

Since these facts have come to light, he has been accused of never actually performing the studies he published in respectable journals such as the British Medical Journal, and in his own journal, Nutrition Research.

In order to try to prop up his case, Chandra published a study by someone named Amrit Jain in Nutrition Research confirming his previous results. Amrit Jain was supposedly affiliated with the Medical Clinic and Nursing Home, Jaipur, India; however, this place appears to be completely fictional. It has never been referred to anywhere except in Amrit Jain's paper. Also, Amrit Jain's mailing address is not in India, but a Canadian post office box. When investigators attempted to contact Jain, they were unable to get a reply or even confirm his existence or credentials.

Memorial University of Newfoundland took action in regard to allegations of research fraud leveled against Dr. Chandra. However, Dr. Chandra's lack of co-operation meant that developing a body of evidence that would support a finding of fraud and warrant discipline proved to be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Memorial's record of investigation

1. The first allegation

a. Memorial struck a two-person committee to undertake a preliminary enquiry. This committee was unable to secure the research data from Dr. Chandra. The committee concluded that there were grounds for a more-detailed investigation.

b. Memorial struck a four-person committee that undertook the more detailed investigation, including hearing witnesses and accepting testimony concerning Dr. Chandra's research. This committee was also unable to secure Dr. Chandra's research data. The preliminary report of that committee was reviewed by lawyers for both Memorial University and Dr. Chandra. That review determined that the committee had committed a number of procedural errors, the consequence of which was that any report and any action taken as a result of a report would have been considered flawed and unsupportable.

c. Memorial's three vice-presidents (Academic, Administration, Research) then assumed the file and assigned a team of lawyers to undertake an effort to secure Dr. Chandra's research data. Dr. Chandra did not produce the data, claiming instead that the data had been stolen. He subsequently sued his research associate, claiming she had stolen the data, but ultimately dropped the lawsuit.

The vice-presidents were unable to secure the data, and, as a consequence, were unable to verify research fraud conclusively. They then required Dr. Chandra to sign an undertaking that would guide his future research, especially relating to the collection and preservation of research data. This undertaking subjected Dr. Chandra to more stringent requirements than any other researcher at the university.

2. The second allegation

The second allegation arose in 2001 when the British Medical Journal (BMJ) contacted Memorial University with concerns about research Dr. Chandra had submitted for publication.

Memorial University officials co-operated fully with the BMJ in an effort to determine the veracity of Dr. Chandra's research material.

a. The BMJ first inquired about statistics in a table of data in Dr. Chandra's research. This could be verified without access to the raw research data. Memorial University officials clarified the matter.

b. The BMJ then inquired about other data. University officials agreed to investigate on behalf of the BMJ but understood that this could only be achieved by reviewing Dr. Chandra's raw research data. University officials requested the research data from Dr. Chandra. Over a period of months and repeatedly Dr. Chandra avoided fulfilling this request. Finally, Dr. Chandra claimed that the research data has been lost by the university when his office had been moved and was therefore unavailable. Shortly after this, in 2002 Dr. Chandra resigned from the university.

In every case where Dr. Chandra's research was called into question, Memorial University took action. Despite its best efforts, the university was unable to make a case for research fraud, largely because the raw data on which a proper evaluation could be made had gone missing.

In both cases, Dr. Chandra blamed others for the loss of the data. In the first instance, he sued his research associate, alleging she had stolen it. In the second instance, he blamed Memorial University for losing it, despite no evidence to support the claim.

As a consequence he has not received any disciplinary action from Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland. However, following the CBC documentary, Memorial announced that it was reopening the case of Dr. Chandra.

Memorial commissioned an independent review of the matter that was conducted by Dr. Paul Pencharz. Dr. Pencharz is a staff physician with the Division of Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, where he also serves as a senior scientist in the hospital’s Research Institute. He is also a professor of pediatrics and nutritional sciences with the University of Toronto. of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada.

Dr. Pencharz examined Memorial University’s policies, processes and initiatives regarding research integrity for the period of the early 1990s to 2006. His review included a comparison with policies and processes for the same period in place at other research-active universities in Canada and an examination of the policies, processes and initiatives relevant to the research of Dr. Chandra.

He found that the policies and procedures that Memorial University of Newfoundland used to protect research integrity and investigate allegations of misconduct at the institution are “sound and in keeping with national guidelines.”

Dr. Pencharz’s full report is available here http://www.mun.ca/marcomm/home/pencharz_report_2007.pdf [further information on the allegations and actions concerning Dr. Chandra’s research, can be found here: http://www.mun.ca/marcomm/home/chandra.php]

Dr. Pencharz found that: “Policies and procedures in the past were based on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Guidelines on Research involving Human Subjects, which were national standards and were current at the time. The MUN [Memorial University of Newfoundland] policies were all sound and fully in keeping with those governing research involving human subjects at the time. Present policies and procedures are based on the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct of Research involving Humans, which are current national standards governing research involving human subjects."

Dr. Pencharz cited additional protections for research integrity that Memorial and its faculty have had in place even before the initial allegations were made against Dr. Chandra.

He found: “What is impressive is the collective agreement between MUN and its faculty association (MUNFA) -- signed Dec. 17, 1992 -- which details how an `allegation of gross misconduct in academic research’ should be made; how such an allegation should be investigated; and how appropriate discipline should be applied if the allegation was proven to be true.”

Furthermore, Dr. Pencharz found that the policies and procedures employed by Memorial were similar to those used at major universities across the country.

He found: “All of the policies and procedures from the other six Canadian universities which were readily available and hence reviewed, were based on national standards, as were those from MUN. While those from the University of Toronto are the most detailed, in my opinion the policies and procedures of Memorial University of Newfoundland -- past and present -- were very similar to those of the six other Canadian universities examined."

Dr. Pencharz found that despite the fact that Dr. Chandra has not been an employee of Memorial since 2002 that the university should not close the book on examining his latter research.

He found: “It is my view that that every accusation of scientific misconduct should be fully investigated. If it is found that there was scientific misconduct, then the other publications of the accused must be reviewed to determine whether or not any other publications contain false information. Fundamental to the handling of proven cases of scientific misconduct is correction of the scientific record. In this way MUN would be seen to be proactive in correcting the scientific record.”

Dr. Pencharz has made recommendations on measures that should be taken by Memorial University to strengthen research integrity. He also makes recommendations for action at the national level, particularly joint actions by the major research funding organizations and research-active universities in Canada.

Notably he recommends: “That Memorial University of Newfoundland advocate for the establishment within Canada of a national research integrity agency” and “that Memorial University work closely with the newly established Canadian Research Integrity Committee… [and] advocate for an agency which covers all aspects of science, irrespective of funding source.”

He makes a number of other recommendations concerning actions that will enable better review of research, including: 1. establishment of a data repository at Memorial into which all scientists would be required to store their data 2. the creation of the role of research integrity officer 3. the protection of due process in investigation of allegations of research fraud, including appeal of findings 4. the protection of so-called “whistle-blowers” who come forward to identify potential problems or concerns.

The university is following up on the recommendations.

Money
It was revealed during Dr. Chandra's divorce trial that he has 120 bank accounts spread across about a dozen countries (mostly tax havens), worth over $2 million. He claimed that the funds were held in trust for research, however, many of the accounts were opened as joint accounts and some of them in the names of other members of his family. The judge in the trial concluded that it was not possible that the money came from his salary as a doctor or as a professor. It is believed the money came from the funds provided to finance the studies he allegedly failed to complete.