Scientist jailed for faking medicine test results Why someone who is as highly educated and as experienced as you would embark on such a course of conduct is inexplicable. Eaton, from Cambridgeshire, had been working on preclinical trials in animals to assess the efficacy of new treatments on behalf of several major drug companies, including AstraZeneca and Roche. Aptuit had been carrying out the work on their behalf. Such tests are carried out to help determine what doses of a drug can be given at safely and to screen for any potentially harmful side effects. Over a six-year period between 2003 and 2009, however, Eaton selectively reported data he was using to assess the concentration of a drug in blood samples. This ensured that experiments were deemed to be successful even when they had in fact failed. Eaton's actions could have persuaded his bosses that the drugs were suitable for use in trials with patients. But his scam was detected when Aptuit spotted irregularities in his analysis results. They then alerted the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) who conducted an investigation into the results. Aptuit stopped work on Eaton's projects and the drugs were not given to patients until further testing had been carried out, the MHRA said. The MHRA reviewed hundreds of drugs that had been tested by Aptuit as part of a two-year investigation in order to check their safety Jim Stephenson, the defence solicitor advocate representing Eaton, said his client had been under a lot of pressure at the time and had been having trouble with his personal life. He said that Eaton had not gained financially but the court was offered no motive for why Eaton had manipulated the data. Gerald Heddell, director of inspection enforcement and standards at the MHRA, said that Eaton's actions had delayed the development of several medicines, including one to treat depression. His conviction is the first time anyone has been prosecuted under the Good Laboratory Practice Regulations 1999. He said: "Mr Eaton's actions directly impacted on the validity of clinical trials. The sentence sends a message that we will not hesitate to prosecute those whose actions have the potential to harm public health. Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said: "Good science is based on reliable observation and the data can only be relied upon if scientists are open and honest. People in the UK generally trust science because they know that experimentation is the most reliable route to knowledge. Anything that could be seen to jeopardise both the process and the trust it engenders is dangerous and needs to be rooted out.