This article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Steven Shafer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 19 April 2013 by reviewer Joe Decker (talk · contribs).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested Changes by Steve Shafer (subject of the page)

Slshafer (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC) I would like to request that an editor of this page make several additions to this page.[reply]

Author Misconduct

I have done a lot of work with Anesthesia & Analgesia addressing author misconduct. Now that I have a Wikipedia page (arrgh...) I am finding that it is referenced when I am introduced for lectures, contacted by the media, etc. Along these lines, it would be helpful if my Wikipedia page included a bit more information about the work I have done at Anesthesia & Analgesia addressing author misconduct.

In particular, there have been three unfortunate, but very significant, cases of misconduct by anesthesiologists who have published in Anesthesia & Analgesia: Scott Reubin, Joachim Boldt, and Yoshitaka Fujii. All of these individuals now have their own Wikipedia pages documenting their misconduct. It would be helpful if my Wikipedia page mentioned the role that Anesthesia & Analgesia had in the identification of these cases, and the publication of their misconduct. Here are some verifiable links for each:

Scott Reuben

Shafer SL. Notice of retraction. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1350. Shafer SL. Tattered threads. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1361-3. White PF, Rosow CE, Shafer SL; Editorial Board of Anesthesia & Analgesia. The Scott Reuben saga: one last retraction. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:512-5.

Of note is that Scott Reuben's misconduct was identified by his institution, NOT by any of the involved Journals. Put another way, Anesthesia & Analgesia did NOT identify his misconduct. We only reported on it, and retracted his papers. However, we are the only Journal to engage in follow-up regarding his unretracted manuscripts, described in the last reference.

Joachim Boldt

Shafer SL. Shadow of doubt. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:498-500. Shafer SL. Notice of retraction. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:1567. Shafer SL. Editor's note: notices of retraction. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:1246-7.

More Boldt links: While the English Language page on Joachim Boldt contains some of the interesting references: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Joachim_Boldt, the German Language page is much more complete and authoritative: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Boldt

Joint EIC Statement regarding Joachim Boldt www.aaeditor.org/EICJointStatement.pdf

Research Misconduct. Boldt: the great pretender BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1738

http://www.anesthesiologynews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=Web+Exclusives&d_id=175&i=January+2011&i_id=693&a_id=16596

In the case of Joachim Boldt, Anesthesia & Analgesia pursued concerns about misconduct for nearly a year before finally getting a clear answer from the German authorities, as described in "Shadow of Doubt" above.

Fujii

See multiple references to Anesthesia & Analgesia, and the Joint EIC statement, on the Wikipedia page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Yoshitaka_Fujii

Shafer SL. Editor's note: notices of retraction. Anesth Analg. 2012;115:982.

Shafer SL. Editor's note: notices of retractions. Anesth Analg. 2013;116:739.

http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2012/04/new-record-retractions

This is a complex story, and the most collaborative among the Journals. The real credit here belongs to Steve Yentis, Editor-in-Chief of Anaestheis, and John Carlisle, who did an incredible job pulling together the analysis that ultimately identified massive research fraud. The reference for John's paper is Carlisle JB. The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:521-37.

My role was supportive, although I was (and still am) involved in both the statistical analysis of Fujii's work. I also wrote and organized the joint EIC statement, and coordinated the inquiry directed to Fujii's various institutions.

Plagiarism and Misconduct

Eldawlatly A, Shafer SL. Caveat lector. Anesth Analg. 2012 Jun;114:1160-2. Shafer SL. You will be caught. Anesth Analg. 2011 Mar;112:491-3.

STANPUMP

I wrote the computer program "STANPUMP" and placed it in the public domain (see http://www.opentci.org/doku.php?id=code:code). STANPUMP became the primary open-source program for a type of drug delivery called "Target Controlled Infusions." If you go to PubMed, you will find 17 references to STANPUMP. It has been used in many more trials than that (it is unusual for a computer program to even be identified in PubMed). Because STANPUMP is open source (e.g., http://sourceforge.net/projects/linstanpump/) key portions of the software code have been incorporated into many of the commercial TCI systems.

UCSF Faculty Position

I am also an Adjunct Associate Professor of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences at the University of California at San Francisco (see https://directory.ucsf.edu/?q=dept:%22Bioengineering%22, although the listed e-mail address is wrong). It would be helpful if this could be added to my page, as it really annoys my colleagues at UCSF if I don't bother listing my association (implying I don't respect my adjunct appointment).

I have edited Dr. Markman's information, since the post is no longer accurate. license was not suspended. The final decision of the California Medical Board was to not suspend Markman's license, but rather to place him on probation. To my complete surprise, the California Medical Board wound up agreeing with me that in this unique case, Dr. Markman's use of propofol was logical and reasonably safe. However (also in agreement with my view) held that there were reasons to be concerned about lack of equipoise since he was both the father and the treating physician. They actually said he could continue treating his daughter, as long as it was in a properly licensed facility, and that an independent monitor was present.

I also edited the Norberg information, as his license was not only restored, but he is back at work with his former employer. Thus, the only relevant information is simply that he was acquitted.

Lastly, I forgot to log in prior to updating the page itself. Sorry! Hopefully the bots won't undo my work...

Slshafer (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.27.196 (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand if the editors don't feel these changes are meritorious. However, if they could be done I would appreciate that.

Thanks,

Steve Shafer

Hi, Steve, nice to see you again. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot use primary sources (like a medical board's decision) in support of material. I've therefore removed the source and the material you added. I also re-added what was there before, although I also said that Norberg planned to have his license reinstated (the secondary source reported that). If you can find secondary sources in support of the current status of their licenses, we could probably add that, but nothing that is in the article is wrong; it just may be outdated. Also, as you obviously know, both of the licenses are clouded, even though they are allowed to practice under specific conditions.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear BBB23: I've posted a reply to your talk page, and look forward to continued dialog. Steve Shafer Slshafer (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

stanfordcardanes is back.

stanfordcardanes originally created my web page. As mentioned in the discussion about my proposal to delete my page, I have clear evidence that stanfordcardanes is associated with Conrad Murray's defense. The intent in creating my Wikipedia page was to impeach my testimony against Conrad Murray by contrasting it with my public support of Robert Markman, a retired naval anesthesiologist who was also using propofol in a home. "Stanford Cardiac Anesthesia", implied by "stanfordcardanes," is a misdirection. Nobody at Stanford has anything to do with this. It's no surprise that stanfordcardanes is again attempting to link me to Robert Markman. Conrad Murray did the same thing in his recent interview on CNN: http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/26/cnn-exclusive-conrad-murray-sets-the-record-straight. Paul White (defense expert for Conrad Murray) also cited Robert Markman when speaking at an anesthesia meeting in April about my testimony against Conrad Murray.

I intend to eventually write up the story of Robert Markman for publication. It raises complex ethical and medical questions, the most critical of which is what is the role of a parent who is also the physician of last resort? For the record, the State of California (to my amazement) agreed with my view, and restored Dr. Markman's license.

I appreciate David Eppstein and Xxanthippe keeping an eye on this page, since it appears that Conrad Murray's defense team created it, and continues to attempt to attack my credibility by linking me to Robert Markman. The link is entirely accurate. The inference that it is inconsistent with my testimony against Conrad Murray is not.

Slshafer (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]