by Seven studies by researchers at the renowned Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have been retracted in the past two months after a scientist blogger claimed the images used in them had been manipulated or duplicated.
The withdrawals are the latest development in a months-long controversy over research at the Boston-based institute, which is a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School.
The issue came to light after Sholto David, a microbiologist and science volunteer based in Wales, published an alarming post on his blog in January, alleging errors and manipulations of images across dozens of papers produced mainly by Dana researchers. -Farber. The institute admitted errors and later announced that it had requested the withdrawal of six studies and requested corrections in 31 other papers. Dana-Farber also said, however, that an error review process was in place prior to David’s post.
Now, at least one more study than Dana-Farber originally indicated has been retracted, and David said he has received 30 additional studies from authors affiliated with the institute who believe there are errors or image manipulations and that they therefore deserve scrutiny.
The incident tarnished the reputation of a major cancer research institute and raised questions about one high-profile researcher there, Kenneth Anderson, who is the senior author of six of the seven retracted studies.
Anderson is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana-Farber. He did not respond to multiple emails or voicemails seeking comment.
The new retractions and allegations add to an ongoing larger debate in science about how to protect scientific integrity and reduce the incentives that could lead to research misconduct or unintended mistakes.
The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has moved relatively quickly to seek retractions and corrections.
“Dana-Farber is deeply committed to a culture of accountability and integrity, and as an academic research and clinical care organization we also prioritize transparency,” said Dr. Barrett Rollins, the institute’s integrity research officer, in a statement. “However, we are bound by federal regulations that apply to all academic medical centers funded by the National Institutes of Health among other federal agencies. Therefore, we cannot share details of internal review processes and will not comment on personnel matters.”
The withdrawal studies were originally published in two journals: One in the Journal of Immunology and six in Cancer Research. Six of the seven focused on multiple myeloma, a type of cancer that develops in plasma cells. Retraction notices indicate that Anderson agreed to retract the papers he wrote.
Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and longtime image sleuth, reviewed some of the paper retraction statements and scientific images for NBC News and said the errors were serious.
“The features I’m looking at in the photos have been duplicated, where the photo itself has been manipulated,” she said, adding that these features were “signs of misbehavior”.
Dr. John Chute, who directs the division of hematology and cellular therapy at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and has contributed to multiple myeloma studies, said the papers were produced by pioneers in the field, including Anderson.
“These are people I admire and respect,” he said. “These were all high-impact papers, meaning they are widely read and highly cited. By definition, they had a broad impact on the field.”
Chute said he did not know the authors personally but had followed their work for a long time.
“These investigators are some of the leading figures in the field of myeloma research and have paved the way for our understanding of the biology of the disease,” he said. “The papers they publish have led to all kinds of additional work in that direction. People follow those directions and the industry pays attention to that and subsequent drug development.”
The retractions provide further evidence of what some scientists have been saying for years: The more you look for errors or image manipulation, the more you find, even at the highest levels of science.
Scientific images are typically used in papers to present evidence of experimental results. Commonly, they represent cells or mice; other types of images show key results such as western blots – a laboratory method that identifies proteins – or bands of DNA molecules separated in gels.
Scientific sleuths sometimes examine these images for irregular patterns that may indicate errors, duplication or manipulations. Some artificial intelligence companies are training computers to find these problems, too.
Duplicate images could be a sign of sloppy lab work or data practices. Manipulated images — where a researcher has heavily modified an image with photo editing tools — may indicate that images have been exaggerated, enhanced or altered in an unethical way that could change how other scientists interpret study results or scientific meaning.
Top scientists at large research institutions often run sprawling laboratories with many junior scientists. Critics of scientific research and publishing systems allege that a lack of opportunities for young scientists, limited oversight and pressure to publish flashy papers that can advance careers could encourage misconduct.
These critics, as well as many people in science, allege that errors or sloppiness are all too common, that research organizations and authors often ignore concerns when they are identified, and that the path from complaint to the slow correction.
“When you look at the amount of retractions and poor peer review in research today, the question is, what happened to the quality standards that we thought existed in research?” said Nick Steneck, professor emeritus at the University of Michigan and an expert on scientific integrity.
David told NBC News that he had some, but not all, concerns about additional image issues with Dana-Farber. He also said he did not identify any problems in four of the seven withdrawn studies.
“It is good that they have picked up things that were not on the list,” he said.
NBC News asked for an updated account of retractions and corrections, but Ellen Berlin, a spokeswoman for Dana-Farber, declined to provide a new list. She said the numbers could change and the institution had no control over the form, format or timing of the corrections.
“Any account we give you today could be different tomorrow and probably be different a week from now or a month from now,” Berlin said. “The point of sharing numbers with the public weeks ago was to let the public know that Dana-Farber had taken swift and decisive action on the articles on which a Dana-Farber faculty member was the primary author. “
She added that Dana-Farber was encouraging journals to correct the scientific record as soon as possible.
Bik said it was unusual to see more papers retracted by a highly regarded US institution.
“I don’t think I’ve seen many of those,” she said. “In this case, there has been a lot of public attention and they seem to be responding very quickly. It’s unusual, but as it should be.”
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
