by Scientists at a Harvard-affiliated cancer hospital plan to retract six studies and correct 31 others as part of an ongoing investigation into image duplication and inconsistencies in dozens of papers by some of its lead researchers.
A post on For Better Science, a blog focused on scientific integrity, highlighted potential problems in papers co-authored by top scientists and executives at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. The institute is widely regarded as a national leader in cancer treatment and research, and much of its scientific work is supported by taxpayer dollars; it received more than $160 million from the National Institutes of Health in 2023, according to a federal database.
Subscribe to The Post’s largest newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post.
In addition to the pending retractions and corrections, one potentially erroneous paper is still under review. Sixteen others relied on data collected at science labs outside of Dana-Farber, and researchers at those labs have been made aware of the concerns, according to Barrett Rollins, Dana-Farber’s research integrity officer. .
He also said that all the allegations raised by the blog are not true. It was found that no action was required by paper.
“The presence of image inconsistencies in a paper is not evidence of the author’s intent to deceive. That conclusion can only be reached after a careful, fact-based examination that is central to our response,” Rollins said in a statement. “Our experience is that errors are often unintentional and do not raise the level of misconduct.”
Rollins is a co-author on three of the papers cited by the blogger and has recused himself from those reviews, according to Ellen Berlin, a spokeswoman for Dana-Farber.
It is not clear whether the problems that prompted the retractions and corrections were simple mistakes or the serious scientific sin of research misconduct. But the investigation highlights an essential part of the scientific process – correcting mistakes – at a time of increased scrutiny of academic institutions and publications.
“It’s a fairly aggressive thing to jump in and do a large number of retractions and corrections,” said Nicholas Steneck, a research ethics expert and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan. “From my perspective as someone who promotes integrity in research, that’s spot on – and I wish more organizations would do it.”
Sholto David, an independent molecular biologist, wrote about the papers on the blog after he started examining cancer research studies between jobs. He looked for signs of image problems using his eyes and an AI-based tool called Imagetwin. David conducted his search by following threads, finding one researcher with publications he suspected and then examining others by frequent collaborators.
When he noticed potentially problematic studies by scientists at Dana-Farber, he began looking at work published by top leaders, including president Laurie Glimcher and chief executive operating William Hahn. Glimcher co-authored four of the papers in which David expressed concerns, and Hahn co-authored 17 papers. Glimcher and Hahn did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Not all of the issues that David found were new. Some of them were featured more than a decade ago on PubPeer, a website where researchers comment on and review papers after their publication. The problems run the gamut from relatively minor concerns to more serious allegations of possible image manipulation. The integrity of scientific images is critical as data is often presented in papers.
The Harvard Crimson and STAT News first reported on the investigation in papers by Dana-Farber researchers. David said he mentioned questions with four additional papers to Dana-Farber administrators Monday morning.
Rollins said researchers were already reviewing possible data errors “in several cases listed in the blog.”
Verifying and correcting errors are the first, and in many ways, the simplest parts of the process. The science is done by the teams, and the papers in question go back as far as 1998, meaning that careful investigation will be needed to determine the source of any errors.
“The one person who did it? Was it the atmosphere of the laboratory? That’s where it takes a lot of time to come in and figure out who was really responsible,” Steneck said.
In general, the person listed first on a scientific paper, known as the lead author, did most of the work. The last person named, known as the senior author, is generally the scientist whose laboratory and funding supported the work. The middle authors may have different levels of participation and contribution which may range from critical to more intensive.
But scientific and medical publishing ethics generally say that all authors should be held accountable for the work.
Hidde Ploegh, an immunologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and senior author of a 2005 paper cited on PubPeer as having an image discrepancy, said in an email that he was not aware of any problems with the paper.
“It’s unfortunate that it’s easy to make these kinds of allegations anonymously without checking with the authors first,” Ploegh said in an email. “It creates a suggestion of abuse that is undeserved.”
Boaz Tirosh, a biochemist at Case Western Reserve University and lead author of the paper, also said he was not aware of PubPeer’s questions, but defended the questioned figures and said the paper’s main finding was “confirmed by multiple studies in the report. communal.” Glimcher is a co-author on that paper.
While understanding the source of the errors in each case will likely take a long investigation, Steneck said, he insists that the rigorous action Dana-Farber is taking to correct the scientific record is commendable.
“Elite knowledge in academic institutions [is] under attack right now, and the last thing you want to do is leave yourself in a vulnerable position when it comes up,” said Steneck. “So if this is an aggressive response from Dana-Farber, I think that’s exactly what they should do.”
Related Content
As carjackings increase, food delivery drivers face collateral risks
Across Detroit, solidarity through football
DeSantis faces a bleak path in transitioning resources to SC
