Contact Us E-Alert Signup Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Scientists investigated for misconduct lose appeal in suit against Harvard. Lawyers explain what it means.

Retraction Watch - September 7, 2016

Partner Paul Thaler was interviewed by Ivan Oransky along with Richard Goldsetin of Meyer, Connolly, Simons & Keuthen LLP for the Retraction Watch article "Scientists investigated for misconduct lose appeal in suit against Harvard. Lawyers explain what it means." Paul was interviewed about the Piero Anversa and Annarosa Leri case and what it means for similar lawsuits. The full article is available on the Retraction Watch website.

By: Ivan Oransky

Retraction Watch readers may recall the case of Piero Anversa and Annarosa Leri, both formerly of Harvard and the Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston. The pair — which has had their work subjected to a retraction, expression of concern, and correction — sued their former employers in 2014 for costing them job offers after the institutions notified journals, triggering notices. A judge dismissed the case a year ago, saying that Anversa and Leri had to try other administrative remedies before bringing suit.

But Anversa and Leri appealed, and last week, a court denied that appeal. (See the judge’s decision — which begins by quoting Ecclesiastes and includes the delicious word “gallimaufry” — here.) We spoke by email to two attorneys — Richard Goldstein, who represented the scientist in Bois v. HHS, the first case to overturn a funding ban by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and Paul Thaler, who has represented scientists involved in misconduct proceedings for more than 25 years — about the case, and what it could mean for similar lawsuits. 

To continue reading, please visit the Retraction Watch website