1. In the case of the genomic clinical trials at Duke University, other than the primary researcher, who do you feel is most responsible for failing to perform "due diligence" in regards to the false or erroneous data and for allowing the trials to continue to enroll participants using potentially fraudulent claims of treatment success rates: Duke University, Rob Cliff (Vice Chancellor, Clinical Trials), Joseph Nevins (lab director), Combs and Beggarly (MD Anderson), or the various peer-reviewed journals that published Potty’s initial findings. Explain your answer.

2. In your opinion, based on the facts as presented in the video, are the charges of "research misconduct" fair in the case of Anil Potty, M.D. or do you feel there is a greater level of criminality in these circumstances? If determined to be guilty of "research misconduct" in the performance of a clinical investigation, should a researcher be permitted to resume his role as a medical practitioner? Explain your answer.

3. What is your opinion regarding the statement by Duke University that its researchers provided "standard of care" and, for this reason, "no one was really harmed" in the Potty clinical trials. Should patients expect treatment that exceeds "standard of care" when they enroll in a randomized controlled trial? Explain your answer.

4. Do you agree with Dr. Cliff’s comment that it was a strong desire to help people, and not financial reward that led to the failure of Duke University and outside investigators to further question Dr. Potty’s data and permanently suspend the clinical trials? Explain your answer.

5. As a patient, if you were enrolled in this Duke University clinical trial and were aware that the trial had temporarily been suspended (then restarted again after a review of the data), would you have remained in this specific RCT or would that knowledge have led you to withdraw from the study? Explain your answer.