Talk:Pier Paolo Pandolfi

Conflict of Interest Edit Request
I have made disclosure of my conflict of interest on my user page. I am from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and here to request some edits to this article on Pier Paolo Pandolfi. A colleague of mine had previously tried to edit this page and was unaware of the proper procedures. I have read the rules relating to paid editing and conflicts of interest and would like to make some edit request to this page. --BIHAKen (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Can we remove everything under the "Research" heading (and all subheadings within)? While well-cited, all of the references are his work and from the rules I read about references, these would not be reliable to cite. This entire section would need to be removed in order to meet the rules.

2. Can we replace the "select recent publications" section with a new heading of "select publications" and replace it with the following publication list? These are some of the ones that should be removed from the Research heading. Since they cannot be used as references, it would be better to have them under that heading instead. I also see that the heading is at the end of the page after the reference section. Is this a normal place to put these?


 * Z. Chen, L.C. Trotman, D. Shaffer, H.-K. Lin, Z.A. Dotan, M. Niki, J.A. Koutcher, H.I. Scher, T. Ludwig, W. Gerald, C. Cordon-Cardo and P.P. Pandolfi. Crucial role of p53-dependent cellular senescence in suppression of Pten-deficient tumorigenesis, Nature, 436:725-730, 2005.
 * L.C. Trotman, X. Wang, A. Alimonti, Z. Chen, J. Teruya-Feldstein, S-G. Chi, H-J. Kim, H. Yang, N.P. Pavletich, B.S. Carver, H. Erdjument-Bromage, P. Tempst, C. Cordon-Cardo, T. Misteli. X. Jiang and P.P. Pandolfi. Ubiquitination regulates nuclear PTEN import and tumor suppression. Cell, 128:141-56, 2007.
 * K. Ito, R. Bernardi, A. Morotti, S. Matsuoka, G. Saglio, Y. Ikeda, J. Rosenblatt. D.E. Avigan, J. Teruya-Feldstein and P.P. Pandolfi. PML targeting eradicates quiescent leukemia initiating cells. Nature, 453:1072-8, 2008, Epublished 2008 May 11.
 * M.S. Song, L. Salmena, A. Carracedo-Perez, A. Egia, F. Lo Coco, J. Teruya-Feldstein and P.P. Pandolfi. The deubiquitinylation and localization of PTEN are regulated by a HAUSP-PML network. Nature, 455:813-7, 2008, Epublished 2008 20 August.
 * C. Giorgi, K. Ito, H.-K. Lin, C. Santangelo, M.R. Wieckowski, M. Lebiedzinska, A. Bononi, M. Bonora, J. Duszynski, R. Bernardi, R. Rizzuto, C. Tacchetti, P. Pinton, P.P. Pandolfi. PML Regulates Apoptosis at Endoplasmic Reticulum Modulating Calcium Release. Science, 330:1247-51, 2010. Epub 2010 Oct 28.
 * L. Poliseno, L. Salmena, J. Zhang, B. Carver, W. J. Haveman, and P.P. Pandolfi. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology. Nature, 465:1033-8, 2010.
 * I. Garcia-Cao, M.S. Song, R.M. Hobbs, G. Laurent, C. Giorgi, V.C.J. de Boer, D. Anastasiou, K. Ito, A. Sasaki, L. Rameh, A. Carracedo, M.G.Vander Heiden, L.C. Cantley, P. Pinton, M.C Haigis, P.P. Pandolfi. Systemic elevation of PTEN induces a tumor-suppressive metabolic state. Cell, 149:49-62, 2012.
 * A. Papa, L. Wan, M. Bonora, L. Salmena, M.S. Song, R.M. Hobbs, A. Lunardi, K. Webster, C. Ng, R.H. Newton, N. Knoblauch, J. Guarnerio, K. Ito, L.A. Turka, A.H. Beck, P. Pinton, R.T. Bronson, W. Wei, and P.P. Pandolfi. Cancer-associated PTEN mutants act in a dominant-negative manner to suppress PTEN protein function. Cell, 2014 Apr 24; 157(3): 595-610.
 * F.A. Karreth, M. Reschke, A. Ruocco, C. Ng, B. Chapuy, V. Léopold, M. Sjoberg, T.M. Keane, A. Verma, U. Ala, Y. Tay, N. Seitzer, A. Bothmer, J. Fung, F. Langellotto, S.J. Rodig, O. Elemento, M.A. Shipp, D.J. Adams, R. Chiarle, and P.P. Pandolfi. 2015. The BRAF pseudogene functions as a competitive endogenous RNA and induces lymphoma in vivo. Cell, 2015 Apr 9; 161(2):319-32.
 * J. Guarnerio, M. Bezzi, J.C. Jeong, S.V. Paffenholz, K. Berry, M.M. Naldini, F. Lo-Coco, Y. Tay, A.H. Beck, and P.P. Pandolfi. Oncogenic Role of Fusion-circRNAs Derived from Cancer-Associated Chromosomal Translocations. Cell. 2016 Apr 7;165(2):289-302.
 * A. Matsumoto, A. Pasut, M. Matsumoto, R. Yamashita, J. Fung, E. Monteleone, A. Saghatelian, K.I. Nakayama, J.G. Clohessy, and P.P. Pandolfi. mTORC1 and muscle regeneration are regulated by the LINC00961-encoded SPAR polypeptide. Nature. 2017 Jan 12;541(7636):228-23.
 * A.C. Bester, J.D. Lee, A. Chavez, Y.R. Lee, D. Nachmani, S. Vora, J. Victor, M. Sauvageau, J.L. Rinn, P. Provero, G.M. Church,, J.G. Clohessy, P.P. Pandolfi. An Integrated Genome Wide CRISPRa Approach to Study Drug Resistance Uncovers Coding and Noncoding Networks. Cell, 2018 Apr Cell. 2018 Apr 19;173(3):649-664.

3. Can you please add the image uploaded at Wikimedia Commons here - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pier_Paolo_Pandolfi_2017.jpg

--BIHAKen (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply 19-FEB-2019

 * The Research section was omitted.
 * The requested articles were added to a Publications section.
 * The requested picture was added.

Regards,  Spintendo   05:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The award section was omitted, as the items listed there were not independently notable in Wikipedia.
 * 2) The information in the lead concerning the subjects's research was omitted.

Thank you for such a quick response. This has been a smoother process than I anticipated. --BIHAKen (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

New COI Edit Request
I am requesting that following additions/changes be made to the article for Pier Paolo Pandolfi. --BIHAKen (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Can we add a section at the bottom for external links and add links for his website (which is his laboratory), his profile on Google Scholar, and a radio interview from CBC. The link to his laboratory is already at the top in the information panel so not sure if we can include it twice. If not, please omit. I am also not sure if it would seem promotional to add the radio interview. If you feel that it is, please omit that as well.


 * Pandolfi Laboratory
 * Pier Paolo Pandolfi on Google Scholar
 * CBC Radio interview with Pier Paolo Pandolfi

2. Can we remove the "biography" heading as the page is really too short to actually have a heading like this? I have proposed new text below but do not believe it needs its own subheading.

3. There are currently two paragraphs in the article which I propose to rewrite since the sources used currently are not necessarily some of the best sources, nor are they the secondary type sources that are required by Wikipedia. I would also propose adding a new paragraph that summarizes his research (note that there was a request to remove many paragraphs yesterday as they were improperly sourced. The new paragraphs (listed below) use better sources such as The New York Times (3 different articles), Harvard Business Review, and The Boston Globe. There are also a few references in Italian that can be pasted into Google Translate to see that they are reliable and what they say. If any of the information is deemed promotional or does not meet standards, please omit.

Pier Paolo Pandolfi (born May 14, 1963) is an Italian-American geneticist and molecular biologist. He is the Director of the Cancer Center and the Cancer Research Institute at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Victor J. Aresty Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Previously, he was a faculty member at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and professor of at the Weill Cornell Graduate School of Medical Sciences at Cornell University.

Pandolfi was born in 1963 in Rome, Italy. His parents were both humanities professors and both died of cancer. A citizen of both Italy and the United States, Pandolfi was “knighted” by the Republic of Italy. Pandolfi has received numerous awards for his research, including being a recipient of the Weizmann Institute Lombroso Prize for Cancer Research and the Pezcoller-AACR International Award for cancer research.

His research focuses on the molecular mechanisms and genetics underlying the pathogenesis of leukemias and solid tumors. Pandolfi’s elucidation of fusion oncoproteins and genes involved in the chromosomal translocations of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) led to the development of effective therapies, with APL now being considered curable. Pandolfi’s modeling of cancer in mice has resulted in new discovery platforms that are used to evaluate drugs and predict the course of disease, treatment and resistance. One such discovery led to the theory describing how non-coding RNAs regulate basic biological processes such as growth and tumorigenesis, thus dispelling long-held beliefs that non-protein coding genes in the human genome were “junk.” He and his colleagues uncovered a new hidden code whereby these “junk” genes can function and talk to each other.

4. Please remove the notice at the top of the page that says the article was edited for pay. I believe this was placed there due to my colleague who previously edited in violation of conflict of interest rules. If there is something different that is needed to the article to remove this tag, please let me know so that I can request it be done.

COI Statement
On a final note, I have made sure that everyone within our organization is aware of how to request edits on Wikipedia. I can also affirm that any authorized edits from within our organization would be disclosed as such and requested on the talk pages of articles as opposed to editing directly. --BIHAKen (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply 22-FEB-2019

 * 1) Above you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section above for information on each request.
 * 2) With respect to the COI maintenance template, I usually recommend that, as a courtesy, the COI editor first try asking the editor who assigned the template in order to find out from them if it can be removed. My logic is that since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. The template itself contains language which deals with the article's creation, and if payments were undisclosed at that time, it might continue to impact the template. Please check with the assigning editor (shown in the linked diff above) to be sure.
 * 3) The external links were added.

Regards,  Spintendo   13:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will reach out to this editor now. --BIHAKen (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a message at this link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James#Pier_Paolo_Pandolfi --BIHAKen (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up Request February 26, 2019
Here are some follow-up requests based on the comments above. Thank you for all of your help so far. I understand your reasoning for declining some of the information. For the clarification you requested on the others, please refer to the following: --BIHAKen (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Request for clarification for - Pandolfi’s modeling of cancer in mice has resulted in new discovery platforms that are used to evaluate drugs and predict the course of disease, treatment and resistance. - You requested a quote from the New York Times that verifies this. The New York Times supports the current study and mentions its benefits, but the source that would actually have a quote would be one from the Boston Globe which I just added. This is from 2010 which states - "Pandolfi first used this strategy 15 years ago on rare acute promyelocytic leukemia. By using genetically engineered mice, he and others were able to understand how different forms of the disease responded to treatment. They used mice to identify experimental combinations of drugs that might work." - This quote was added to the reference above. I would also recommend keeping the other two references there as they also support the comment, although they do not have a quote similar to the one from The Boston Globe.

2. Request for clarification for - One such discovery led to the theory describing how non-coding RNAs regulate basic biological processes such as growth and tumorigenesis, thus dispelling long-held beliefs that non-protein coding genes in the human genome were “junk.” He and his colleagues uncovered a new hidden code whereby these “junk” genes can function and talk to each other. - You mention that the date of the reference I used for The New York Times predates the reference for the current mice study. That is accurate and I apologize for not using a different reference as it does kind of mislead with the dates. The research has been done for a long time. You can see the Boston Globe reference above which is from 2010. This states that he has done the research for at least 15 years so it goes back before the turn of the century. I am going to add another reference to that section which will help clarify everything. If you need more than that, I can supply more.
 * Note - The article I just added from The New York Times talks about Pandolfi and describes the work with junk genes. The quote I specifically chose states that he is using this science in his lab - "His lab at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston is studying how this arcane back channel is used by genes called PTEN and KRAS, commonly implicated in cancer, to confer with their pseudotwins." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BIHAKen (talk • contribs) 23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I was asked by to comment on this:
 * I do not consider the article satisfactory, or the evaluation ofthe proposed changes in the boxabove satisfactory. . It's true that leaving just a publication list is NPOV, but it provides little useful information to the reader.    It is appropriate to describe what he has done, using his publications as references for it. It's exactly the same as listing the plot of a book from the book itself. What needs to be distinguished is describing what he has worked on,  from describing its significance, just as describing the meaning of a novel needs outside sources.  For example, the discovery of the role of noncoding DNA is not primarily due to him, though his work is part of the picture. That his proposed regulatory pathway is of basic significance has to be shown from the comments of other scientists, not newspapers.  A statement such as, can be used in modelling cancer therapy ...  is puffery, no matter from where it might be quoted. it applies to most of molecular biology, and anyone working anywhere in the area of  cell & molecular biology  will  make that claim for their work in grant applications, and all press releases and newspapers copy it. using such statements amounts to  cherry-picking quotations.
 * I know commented that  the NYT is  an adequate source for this, but I think it requires MEDRS quality evidence.    DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * . Thank you for your opinion about the content. I will respond to each accordingly.


 * Undisclosed Paid Editing Notice - You stated "I commented on the article talk page. Until there's a satisfactory version, the tag should remain." I don't believe anything in the current article was placed there by an undisclosed editor. If there are content issues, I would think another warning at the top would be appropriate. In fact, I requested the removal of the majority of the page which I believe is the content that was added by the undisclosed editor. The copy of the article which was largely edited by the undisclosed editor can be viewed at this link. The current article is nothing like that. The main request that I had which was answered was removing the large research section as it was all referenced to his own work or studies that he was an author or co-author of. This I believe was against Wikipedia rules as a secondary source would be needed. Is there currently something in the article that would require a warning about undisclosed paid editing since the content there was removed? If so, can you tell me what specifically about the article needs addressed? --BIHAKen (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Research Section - I looked and see your point about the research information. Please let me know if I am wrong with my assessment, but I think it would be fine to attribute "what" he does as far as research to a secondary source, but attributing "results" such as "can be used in modelling cancer therapy" would not be. I am going to take a look at other sources prior to proposing an update on that section. I think removing most of the cause and affect statements and getting it down to just saying what his research is would suffice. Would you agree or maybe just wait until you see the proposed wording prior to leaving an opinion? Any thoughts you have would be great.--BIHAKen (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What you suggest would certainly help. But the research section needs to explain this a little more exactly--it should be informative to people who know some science. Avoid general non-scientific terms "new hidden code" What did he actually find?  The bio section should show all degrees and major academic appointments, each in chronological sequence. List the most cited publications only.  But it is impossible to judge by bits and pieces. What is needed now is a draft of the entire article as you propose it--I suggest you do it on a subpage of this talk page.   Once we have it OK, the tagcan come off.  DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . So looking at the current page, the only thing in dispute would be the addition of the below information about his research. I agree that it would require more explanation and medical sources as it was originally worded. As such, I simply cut it down to three sentences. The current proposed wording only states what he does and leaves out any subjective wording such as the results of his research. I think this would cover his research as it states what he does. If people want to know more about the results, they can search off-Wikipedia for more information. I also included the original proposed wording below for comparison. If you can please check this out and let me know. --BIHAKen (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Previous Proposal:

His research focuses on the molecular mechanisms and genetics underlying the pathogenesis of leukemias and solid tumors. Pandolfi’s elucidation of fusion oncoproteins and genes involved in the chromosomal translocations of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) led to the development of effective therapies, with APL now being considered curable. Pandolfi’s modeling of cancer in mice has resulted in new discovery platforms that are used to evaluate drugs and predict the course of disease, treatment and resistance. One such discovery led to the theory describing how non-coding RNAs regulate basic biological processes such as growth and tumorigenesis, thus dispelling long-held beliefs that non-protein coding genes in the human genome were “junk.” He and his colleagues uncovered a new hidden code whereby these “junk” genes can function and talk to each other.

Current Proposal 7-APR-2019
His research focuses on the molecular mechanisms and genetics underlying the pathogensis of leukemias and solid tumors. This includes elucidation of fusion oncoproteins and genes involved in the chromosmal translocations of acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). Pandolfi also conducts modeling of cancer in mice for prediction, treatment, and resistance of disease.

This was previously declined by me, with the reasoning that the sources provided came from Harvard medical school, with which the subject is associated. further enhanced that decline, by stating "A statement such as, can be used in modelling cancer therapy ... is puffery, no matter from where it might be quoted" and suggested WP:MEDRS as additional requirements. That part of the original claim has now been removed, but it is still unknown whether DGG's requirement — that this should bring MEDRS level sourcing — still ought to be provided with the remainder of this claim. Pinging DGG and for their input here. Regards, Spintendo  12:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * User:DGG is the expert on BLPs. So will leave to them :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Spintendo  19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I find this back-and-forth confusing. I know it's the standard method for working with COI, and it is usually worth a try, in the hop ethat the first round gives a satisfactory statement.   But after that,  for dealing with details and getting the appropriate statement of the implications, I find that  the only way I can work is  for the coi editor to suggest references, and for the reviewer to rewrite. So I looked myself at the sources.  In this particular case there is fortunately a news source, the NYT article cited above, that explains the status of the work in 2013 very well and accurately, with a proper statement of the extent of applicability to humans, and gives an  appropriate high quality reference to support it.  (It additionally goes on to personal anecdotes about a single patient, which is the way newspaper writers work. but that can be ignored--one of the key functions of MEDRS is to prevent such material getting into an encyclopedia.
 * I now need a similar well written and also professional sources to describe the state of the work since 2013. This is 6 years later. Either the model has produced good results, which need to be mentioned, or the direction of research has been abandoned.
 * I shall  devise my own wording in a day or two, taking account of the references that have been suggested above and what I can find.  Anyone without a coi who doesnt like it and change it.  DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your offer to devise a better sounding claim to be placed in the article. But all I was looking for here was a simple accept or decline. Anything beyond that is going above and beyond what is expected of COI reviewers, as it is not your responsibility to do this COI editor's work for them. They are the ones who want this information added to the article, so it should fall onto them to reword this information so that it is acceptable. Doing that work for them will only encourage them to skip this step the next time they wish for something to be added to the article. There is the old adage that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for one day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for life. In this case, Wikipedia has more than enough help pages already written on how to revise statements so that they are acceptable. Perhaps this COI editor needs to review them in order to feed themselves. Granted, you have the wisdom and experience on how best to word this claim, but that wisdom and experience came from your own time and effort spent working on these issues. In the real world, the COI editor would not have an automatic right to access that experience without putting in the same level of work which you have. Wikipedia, to a degree, should be no different. Regards, Spintendo  08:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I know you work this way. I tried it, and found that for anything substantial it was hopelessly confusing. Editing styles differ, and I have learned what I can do most effectively--in fact, I'm still learning from experience and from watching others, like yourself.  10 years ago I had much greater patience than I do now. and would send things back any number of times until the editor got it right. This was probably based on my experience as a RW teacher, where I could actually compel the students to revise repeatedly.
 * My current practice depends on the editor and the article and the type of edit. There are two goals, which can seem to be incompatible:  to educated the coi editor  and  to get a good article.  If the change is a hopeless one on the wrongt rack altogether and the article is not important, I say so; if the change is good enough, I say that also. But usually I do not respond to those requests--you and others handle them at least as welll as I could.  If it is something I can easily teach, and the editor seems responsive, I give advice. If it is something complicated or in some way tricky, and the editor is not likely to be able to fix it, or has tried several times,  and if the article is important enough and it is in my field of interest, I  fix it myself. And even when I'm teaching the editor,  teaching in a system like ours is often best done by example.    I will help any good faith editor, coi or not. There is no obligation on anyone to do this, and you or others are not wrong if you choose not to. The only thing an editor and especially an administrator is actually obliged to fix if they come across it is copyvio and vandalism and the worst blp problems.  Everything else, we work on whatever we want to.
 * But one reason I think my approach is better, is that we want to encourage coi editors to make additions & corrections properly, by asking on the talk page, not editing directly. To do this, we shouldn't be giving them the run around, or treating them like unwilling students. If we are going to permit coi editing--and there is no real way to prevent it--we need to help people who in good faith want to do it right. (Even for paid editing--as long as we permit declared paid editing, I will help anyone who seems likely to learn.) Anyone can edit, and I take that to mean that anyone who is editing according to our rules should be helped to do it right.  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your feedback. I especially like your mention of leading by example, and can see how you are very correct about the need to do this. Not only does leading by example show the person how things are done, it also removes to some extent the feelings engendered in people when they feel that they are being "taught" something, which can help a learning process to go by faster and with more ease. As far as getting the run around, anyone who has spent time at the DMV knows how frustrating it can seem, but seeing the employees of the DMV as intentionally giving others the run around is to misjudge the type of interactions which occur there. It may be true that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, but there is definately a bureaucratic element to learning the ropes of challenging operations here. It's my thinking that COI editors becoming self sufficient and keeping the standards of Wikipedia content high are not mutually exclusive concepts. With regards to the request, statements regarding what the subject's modeling does should be omitted. The statement that Pandolfi's modeling is "for prediction, treatment and resistance of disease" is too conceptually variegated to offer information of substance. Regards,  Spintendo  23:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, and . I have read everything you said above and want to reiterate that I am not here in any way to create a glowing biography or attempt to promote the subject. It is always going to be true that both of you will have a different editing style than new users as you are experienced here on Wikipedia. So it can be a large learning curve for some who are only here for a short time. I do not want to cause issues for anyone, but I am simply going through the process as outlined in the conflict of interest guidelines. With that in mind, I don't really want to request any additional content in the article. If you don't feel that the research should be added, then please leave it out. Or, whatever additional information you feel needs to be added or removed please feel free to do so as you are experienced editors who know the rules better than I do. What I will ask is that the warning be removed from the top of the article. After reading the guidelines on removing these warnings, it seems that the issue would be resolved. The information in the current article was put there either through COI edit requests or other users not associated with the Medical Center. If you would like me to provide any further information to assist with building content on the page I will be happy to do so. But, unless you request that, the last thing I would ask for the page is the removal of the warning. --BIHAKen (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussions there was no clear consensus on whether the template should be removed or not. What that means is that for the time being, the status quo remains. You might try contacting the editor who placed the template if you haven't already done so. Spintendo  01:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done so, per your request to do so, previously above. You were part of that discussion above so I am confused by your last message. It seems like I'm being sent in circles here. I am not trying to be a pain but I have done everything I have been requested to do, have followed the rules of Wikipedia, and seem to hit a brick wall. I have sought assistance at the noticeboard for conflict of interest. I am hoping to get some resolution as there really isn't anything else I know to do other than what I have already done. I have disclosed my affiliation, requested edits in accordance with the rules, and followed your instructions about reaching out to have the tag removed. My last request was even to the editor who said they were going to do a rewrite and they never responded. --BIHAKen (talk) 03:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please provide information on the undisclosed edits which were added to the article. That entails (a) identifying who the COI editor was who added the undisclosed information; (b) Identifying which claims they added to the article; (c) Identifying whether any of those claims remain in the article, and if so, (d) asking (here in an edit request) for those remaining claims to be removed or removed and then re-added by a neutral editor. Then the template may be removed. Regards, Spintendo  10:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Scandal of sexual harassment and sexual abuse
I included info reported from the most important Italian media and newspapers like Corriere della Sera. Pandolfi was forced to leave Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in 2020, and to go back to Italy, because a scandal of sexual harassment and sexual abuse allegations. He was back to Italy and appointed Director of The Istituto Veneto di Medicina Molecolare (VIMM) in Padua, but all the Scientific Committee of the Institute resigned, worried about an international scandal involving the Istitute. The scientific advisory board of the Istitute includes real scientific stars: Jean-Pierre Changeux, emeritus of Institut Pasteur, stem cell luminary Rudolph Jaenisch, Sir Michael Berridge, Wolfgang Baumeister director of Max Planck Institute, Nobel prize in Chemistry and biologist Aaron Ciechanover, Marino Zerial from University College of London, the biologist Junichi Sadoshima and Norbert Perrimon, geneticist and developmental biologist at Harvard Medical School. All of them resigned.

http://www.padovaoggi.it/attualita/nomina-pandolfi-vimm-diventa-caso-internazionale-giorno-visita-presidente-casellati-padova-26-giugno-2020.html

https://www.corriere.it/cronache/20_giugno_27/pier-paolo-pandolfi-scienziato-italiano-via-harvard-molestie-stata-sbandata-ho-sbagliato-mi-scuso-me-ne-sono-andato-io-1a2cf846-b830-11ea-b2d0-312cc6f9a902_preview.shtml?reason=unauthenticated&cat=1&cid=oRt6SJuG&pids=FR&credits=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.corriere.it%2Fcronache%2F20_giugno_27%2Fpier-paolo-pandolfi-scienziato-italiano-via-harvard-molestie-stata-sbandata-ho-sbagliato-mi-scuso-me-ne-sono-andato-io-1a2cf846-b830-11ea-b2d0-312cc6f9a902.shtml

87.6.228.112 (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Someone removed this part, I restored it 95.252.208.121 (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the restoration. Creating a new section for the topic gives undue weight to the topic, and the section was not written in an neutral point of view and in a dispassionate, encyclopedic tone. The biographies of living persons policy requires that we be more careful in how we write about living people. WP:BLPSPS prohibits the use of self-published sources, including the reporting on forbetterscience.com. Some of the sources mentioned above appear to quote that reporting verbatim, without actually performing any additional reporting to confirm it or check for factual accuracy. That is just repeating gossip, which is also not acceptable. There is some room for expansion left, perhaps a sentence about the research misconduct allegations and/or a sentence about Pandolfi threatening legal action against those that said he was forced to resign. Those sentences, of course, must be neutrally worded and reliably sourced. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)