Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Employees of Novartis Pharma K.K. (NPKK) transferred some data from research centers to a Tokyo hospital when that data should have been sent directly without first passing through Novartis hands, according to a report by Japanese broadcaster NHK that was picked up by the Wall Street Journal. "NPKK is currently investigating the allegations," Novartis said in a statement. The data was from a not yet fully enrolled 55-patient trial testing the Novartis cancer drug Tasigna, the company said. "Novartis Pharma K.K. is aware of the media report regarding a small investigator-initiated clinical study ... conducted to assess side effects in patients with chronic myelocytic leukemia," Novartis said in a statement. "NPKK has conducted employee trainings on proper protocol related to investigator-initiated clinical studies and believes that any involvement of our medical representatives in investigator-initiated clinical studies is inappropriate." The University of Tokyo Hospital said it was re-examining test results it had received but had uncovered no evidence that Novartis employees had manipulated any of the data during the transfers, according to the Wall Street Journal report. Claim: Novartis employees may have violated trial protocol in Japan.

Answer: Swiss drugmaker Novartis said on Friday it was looking into a report that employees of is Japanese unit may have violated clinical trial protocol by handling data from a small independent study of one of its cancer drugs.

Question: Paragraph: We'll give the story the benefit of the doubt for again leaning on an independent expert who says the technology is likely prohibitively expensive. While no dollar estimate is given, we think this is good enough for now. As with the harms, the story does quantify the benefits in one way. It says, "It could help avoid up to 98% of these screening procedures, according to the study, which appears in BMJ." It also says, "The new study included 753 pregnant women who were at high risk for having a child with Down syndrome. Of these, 86 women were determined to be pregnant with a child with Down syndrome." The story does quantify potential harms in one way by noting, "There were no false-negative results with the new test." We wish the story also spoke about false positives. False positives are certainly part of the stress and harms from any screening test that need to be considered. In this case, it appears the false positives were low but not negligible. The story adequately describes the study design. The story does avoid disease monitoring, but we wish it had included some of the data from the paper about the frequency of Down syndrome and even some of the other disorders. The LA Times blog piece managed to do this in much less space. The story provides a wealth of outside experts who provide great commentary and context about the study's findings. We wish more stories about screenings had quotes like these:"In a year or two, this test may be available, but it won't replace existing technologies, it will nudge its way into our armamentarium of available methodologies," says Mark I. Evans, MD,director of Comprehensive Genetics in New York City, and an obstetrician/gynecologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, also in New York City. "The bad news is that prenatal diagnosis is not just about Down syndromeDown syndrome represents about 50% of what we find, and this new test can help with that, but it may also give women a false sense of reassurance." The story tries to do a good thing by explaining at the very end that the new test is not a diagnostic test, as amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling are. Rather, it's a screening test. The distinction and the significance of that could have been made more clearly, but we give the story the benefit of the doubt. The story leans on an independent expert to say that the test is "not ready for prime time.in a year or two, this test may be available." The story does not establish the test's novelty, and this is largely because it does not provide the proper context. The study itself says, "In the past 20 years maternal age has been combined with ultrasonographic examination of the fetus and biochemical measurement of various proteins or hormones in the maternal circulation to improve identification of high risk pregnancies. This combined approach of screening can now identify more than 90% of affected fetuses, but there is still a need for invasive testing in 35% of the population." This means that as many as 95% of all women would not need invasive testing to begin with, so this test is only potentially a breakthrough for a small minority of women. BMJ actually makes the novelty question easy to answer by breaking it down this way: What is already known on this topic:Non-invasive prenatal detection of fetal trisomy 21 is achievable by massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNAIts diagnostic performance and practical feasibility in the clinical setting has not been tested on a large scale. What this study adds:Among high risk pregnancies clinically indicated for invasive prenatal diagnosis, non-invasive detection of fetal trisomy 21 can be achieved with the use of multiplexed massively parallel sequencing of maternal plasma DNA at 100% sensitivity and 97.9% specificity, giving a 96.6% positive predictive value and 100% negative predictive value. The sequencing test could be used to rule out trisomy 21 among high risk pregnancies before proceeding to invasive diagnostic testing to reduce the number of cases requiring amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling." The story does not rely on a news release. Claim: Progress Toward Blood Test for Down Syndrome

Answer: This thoroughly reported and carefully written story avoids giving pregnant women false hope of an easier way to detect genetic anomalies while still presenting some compelling information about a new blood test. Pregnancy can be anxiety inducing because of the sheer number of tests already required of women: frequent blood tests, ultrasounds, and amniocentesis in many cases. Add to that the barrage of stories about the way diet and environmental conditions may be affecting in utero development at any given point and one can understand why women might want a simpler solution to find out whether their child might have a genetic disorder. Overall, we think if more stories approached screening the way this story did there would be fewer people demanding the latest over-hyped test from their doctor. This is a "hope for the future" level test that may be inching its way to market. It's not available now and won't be in the immediate future and the story makes that clear.

Question: Paragraph: Since this article is about a treatment whose benefits are disputed,it should tell readers how much it costs. This would let themdo a rough cost-vs.-benefit calculation as they consider whether touse echinacea. The reporter says the study showed a 58 percent reduction in cold risk, and some unspecified ability to shorten duration. It would be useful to know how likely an average adult or child is to get a cold each year, and how long it lasts. This would also helppeople understand the possible payoff of taking echinaceaand compare it to the costs. The articlepoints outthat the herb has some side effects, and quotes a physician mentioning the most common one (a rash, especially in children) and the most important contraindication (pregnancy). It also points out that the study did not take potential harms into account, alerting readers to the possiblity of othersnot mentioned here. The reporter does an excellent job of describingthe technique ofmeta-analysis, the details of this study, and the benefits and limits of this research approach. He also provides context by describing earlier research into the same question. The article does not exaggerate the effects of colds or the value of the treatment. The reporter does an excellent job describing the rigor of the study and getting the author, an interested party, and a disinterested party to provide perspective. The article fails to mention other options for treating and preventing colds. Again, due to the disputed nature of the findings, this is a significantoversight. The reader will want to know: If echinacea doesn't work, what else can I try? The article fails to sayhow widely the herb is used and where it's available. But it's probably safe to assume that most Americans know how to find it. The article makes very clear that this treatment has been studied many times before, with contradictory results. The reporter did a significant amount of original reporting. Claim: Echinacea helps colds, major review shows

Answer:
This article does an excellent job of putting a new finding about the benefits of echinacea in context of previous research. Too often an article will report the new findings and only much lower in the story mention that it contradicts earlier work. From the first paragraph the reporter lets us know we're getting only the latest news about a messy, unresolvedarea of study. The reporter also does a first-rate job of gathering a range of sources to put the findings in context. This article goes well beyond the minimum researcher-plus-one-outside-source requirement, with great benefit to readers. But the story falls short in the area ofhelpingreaders make informed decisions based on the findings. The article doesn't provide enough information on the magnitude of the benefits, the costs of the treatment, or the alternatives. This may leave a reader informed but not well prepared to make a decision about how these findingsapply to their own lives.