https://retractionwatch.com/2012/12/27/stem-cell-retraction-leaves-grad-student-in-limbo-reveals-tangled-web-of-industry-academic-ties/
https://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/29/australian-university-to-repay-275k-grant-because-of-misleading-and-incorrect-information/Irefer once again to the following two articles linked to above. I urgehotcopper readers to not only read the articles, but to also read the commentsfollowing the articles. Some of the comments there, which appear to be postedby researchers or PhD students, seem to call into question further researchdone by some members of the same QUT team.
Iam not a scientist and cannot make a judgment as to whether there is any meritto these comments.
However,the following seems reasonable to me. Given the vitrogro clinical trial was a monumentalfailure, our IP is now practically worthless.
Icall on QUT/FTT/TIS to release all the original research data relating to thedevelopment of vitrgro and let the public scrutinise it.
If QUT/FTTwon’t do this, why not? They can’t hide behind the IP argument anymore since itis close to worthless now.
Justlike QUT had to return grant money due to “misleading and incorrect”information in their research, if FTT/TIS investors were sold/licensed a dud product, surely we have a good chance of being able to claw back from QUT some of the millions of dollars we wasted on clinical development of this product?
