Nobel prize-winning lab retracts paper from Nature
Noah Gray
Monday, 10 March 2008 22:16 UTC
We discussed this topic on the Nature Neuroscience blog, Action Potential (and further discussed here), but I wanted to bring the discussion into this forum as well.
Briefly, a paper published by Linda Buck in 2001 was recently retracted in Nature. Now, a retraction always turns a few heads, especially when it involves a high-profile publication, and ESPECIALLY when it involves the work of a Nobel prize-winning scientist. But what makes this particular retraction even more interesting is the fact that an “Author Contributions” abstract was included by the authors with the retraction. It makes it pretty clear that the other authors place most of the blame for the irreproducibility on the first author.
Now, obviously, The Buck lab is doing the right thing by retracting a paper containing results that they can no longer reproduce, but it seems a bit odd to isolate one author when there was actually a “co-first authorship” on the publication. So the other first author should get the glory, but be protected from the retraction wrath? What do you think? Discussion topics about retractions in general:
1. For a retraction, should dissenting authors be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations against them before the retraction is published?
2. Continuing from the previous point, in that case, should the results and “case” of each side be presented for peer review before deciding on the retraction?
3. If your name is on a fraudulent manuscript, are you as equally liable as the perpetrator in the retraction?
4. It is obviously not practical for a productive lab head to review every single data point for every single figure in every single publication…or is it? In other words, how much trust should a PI afford to his/her students and post-docs?
Updated 12 March 2008 18:20 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Anonymous
The research associate said he really appreciated Steven’s advice. However, he does have concerns.
The research associate said when he first found the evidence that his PI was fabricating data and modifying his data in the PI’s grant application submitted to NIH, he agonized over if he should report to the authority first or confront the PI first. He had concerns as Steven said: “Everyone involved will be impacted by your revelation, and so will their families and yours. People will get hurt, it is unavoidable, and many of those people will be innocent bystanders.” Due to these concerns, he chose to confront the PI first.
After several night’s agonizing, the research associate thought God helped him to think up an idea: he would not report to the authority for the purpose of destroying the PI. Instead, he would try to help the PI to correct mistakes and stop research misconducts.
The research associate put himself into the PI’s position and started thinking: the PI spent a lot of time and energy and developed several transgenic animal models with the same regulatory system. One supposed to be overexpression for a particular gene, one knockdown for the same gene, and the other one overexpression for another gene. All these animal models developed similar symptoms upon stimulation by the same stimulant. The PI assumed that these models proved that too much and too little of that gene product would cause disease with similar symptoms, and too much of the other gene product that antagonized the first gene, would also cause similar disease. However, to prove this assumption, the PI should get clear evidence that the regulated transgenes were really regulated upon stimulation. Unfortunately, the PI had no or very weak evidence to support this assumption.
The research associate thought he would offer the PI an alternative explanation for these models: although it is possible that all 3 models worked nicely according to the PI’s thinking, it is also possible that all 3 models worked in other way that an unknown protein or proteins stimulated by the same stimulant caused the symptoms in all 3 animal models. He suggested the PI to conduct experiments to find clear evidence for these regulated genes. He said if there was only very weak evidence that transgenes were really overexperssed or under expressed as expected, the PI should seriously consider the alternative explanation for the animal models, and that could lead to new discoveries.
He thought if the PI agreed for this thinking, he would be able to stop research misconducts and he would be able to finish his research, and write good papers by the expiration time as his employment contract stated.
When he confronted the PI, showed the PI the evidence for the PI’s research misconducts, and talked about the experiments for clarifying the explanations for these models, the PI agreed to let the research associate conduct experiments to finish his research and set an appointment in two days to review his data so as to plan the paper. At the end of these 2 days, the research associate realized that the PI tried to cheat on him to obtain the evidence for the PI’s misconducts for the purpose of destroying the evidence.
Thus, the research associate initially tried not to be an accuser, but was forced into the accuser of his PI’s misconducts, and as a result, he and his family got injured.
The research associate really appreciate Steven’s advice: “Everyone involved will be impacted by your revelation, and so will their families and yours. People will get hurt, it is unavoidable, and many of those people will be innocent bystanders.” The research associate is really tired and feels painful.
At this time, the research associate tried to put all these behind. However, he faced new dilemmas: when he goes out and look for jobs, how should he describe his experience in his previous employment? Should he try to hide this experience? Or should he honestly describe this experience? Does he have a chance to find a new job in his field?
Could someone help the research associate find a solution?
-
This is exactly what I meant by not trying to fix it yourself. I understand well the temptation to think like this, but the fact is that the social dynamic is wrong. The PI will not appreciate the approach, will see you as the enemy and take steps to marginalize you and remove you. You discovered this.
My recommendation was that if you must pursue the matter you need to privately seek an impartial review of the case and solicit support from a well respected and known to be impartial member of the community. It sounds too late for that and you have effectively been marginalize – so you’ll be lucky to get anyone to consider the matter because they will want no proximity at all to the mess you are in.
If you are a member of a professional organization then speak to them. They will almost certainly have an ethics committee. I found the IEEE ethics committee very helpful and supportive during my own challenges.
So, move on. Do not talk about the matter in future interviews or in your future work environment; whatever they think, and no matter how sympathetic they become, they will not want to be associated with the problem. If you are asked about it later and people ask why you did not say anything earlier, simply explain that it was a painful episode that you are trying to put behind you.
In my experience a lot depends now on the network you have and who in that community is prepared to assist you without becoming directly involved. If you are lucky and sensible someone in that network will give you, or help you find, a new position.
The nice thing about science is that fraud in the results is ultimately detectable. If you stay in the research community and find the professional environment in which you can ultimately publish results of your own work in the field then you rebalance the injustice by force of contribution. If you leave yourself a Baristas Job at Starbucks as the only possible career path, you help no-one.
-
Anonymous
The research associate said he really appreciated Steven’s advice helping him getting out of this mess.
He said when he was agonizing over making decision if he should report to the authority first or confront the PI first, he knew he could not escape from that point. He knew the PI fabricated and misused his data to cheat NIH. He knew the PI misused his data in preparing and falsifying manuscript for possible publication, and he knew the PI’s published data could not be repeated by people in the same lab. He knew that fraud in science is ultimately detectable as Steven said, and he knew if he walked away, the PI could shift much of the blame to him when the fraud is detected, so he could not escape, he was in the mess already.
In addition to the concerns as Steven said: “Everyone involved will be impacted by your revelation, and so will their families and yours. People will get hurt, it is unavoidable, and many of those people will be innocent bystanders.” He also had two forces battling in his mind. His scientific ethic conscience told him that he should report to the authority, but his value of loyalty told him not to destroy but to help his boss. The battle of all these forces in his mind made him agonizing, and eventually made him thinking up the idea he thought would solve all problems. Unfortunately, the idea did not work.
Looking back, he did not regret what he did. He exposed the PI to the authority and he had no burden of the guilty feeling of what could happen to his formal boss. If he could make it much more difficult for his formal boss to receive tax payer’s money to conduct fraudulent science and publish fraudulent paper, he would consider it as his contribution to science. He got injured in the process but he would byte the bullet and swallows it. He considered this ending may be still better than simply walking away but worrying all the time that his formal boss could commit further misconducts and frame him for any unimaginable wrong doing.
Thanks to Steven, he will look for jobs in his field first and try to make contributions to science in the future. However, even if he could not find a job in his field, it is not the end of the world. He would try to find a job in other fields and make a living. He appeared to be stronger now, at least psychologically.
The research associate wanted to express his appreciation to Steven again for his advice helping him getting out of this depressive battle ground.
-
Only a small point of clarification.
When I say find someone “respected, recognized, and known to be impartial” to review you case I am not suggesting you go so someone that has authority over the situation. You need to be discrete, defensive for your sake and others, and you simply need someone impartial to review your case.
It may be, for example, that there is no real merit to your case and that you have misinterpreted something. It may be that even though your case appears to have merit that it is not defensible.
You need someone impartial to give you that review.
I know that when you are in this position it is difficult to identify such an individual and that you feel isolated, uncertain of who you can trust. Stress levels increase and this, frankly, impairs your judgement. It’s a simple sanity check that I recommend.
Your choices are not either to confront the PI or inform the authorities; your first step, like all good science, is to seek an independent review.
-
Anonymous
It is really difficult to find someone impartial to give the research associate a review.
There are confidential issues and other issues. He submitted his accusation report, PowerPoints presentation and other evidence detailing all his accusations of research misconducts against his formal boss, at both college and government levels. Six months has passed and he has no idea if an investigation is still going on or not.
If they are still investigating and if they need him to defend his case, he’ll be available.
-
It sounds like you have done all you can do in this case and you have to be patient; give the matter it’s due process and await vindication. If you and your family are facing hardship in the meantime then this needs to be brought to the attention of those involved.
I would say that in these circumstances, whatever the merit of your case, you should have some representative involved; though definitely not be involved yourself. So either you need an attorney or you need a representative from a professional organization involved.
An attorney will protect your interests explicitly, but you may not have the resources to hire such representation.
Someone from a professional organization has interests from the standpoint of the profession as a whole. If your cause is just then these interests will be aligned with yours and they can provide Amicus Curiae in the case.
Even if you are not a member of such an organization, identify the relevant bodies and speak to their ethics committee if they have one. If you know the PI is a member of such a body then approach them (the conduct of their member is a vested interest to them). Perhaps someone else here can suggest who those bodies should be given your outline.
An alternative is to speak to public interest groups like the ACLU, though I would not follow this route myself. But just the fact of a phone call from a group like the ACLU may be enough to get you regular updates on progress.
I still recommend finding someone impartial in the community to advise you – perhaps your doctoral thesis advisor or someone from your thesis committee (the way you speak about the matter it seems clear that you have no family members that can help). IOW, look to someone that knows you in your previous affiliations.
It may be possible to identify an individual in the local community by simply asking the institutional ethics officer that you mention earlier. Don’t ask them to get involved, simply make it clear that you are looking for impartial advice and review.
Don’t ask anyone for help! That you need help will be clear enough. Give them the opportunity to volunteer :-)
Good luck. Steven
-
Anonymous
Thank you very much! Your advice is greatly appreciated.
-
One last word of advice about looking for an attorney in cases such as these. I’ll assume you are of limited means.
Find the biggest bad-ass attorney in town. The one with the biggest reputation and the largest fees. An attorney like this is very often open to working pro-bono on cases like this and if you are credible will at least be willing to stomp around a little and have people get their ducks in a row.
If the first attorney you go to won’t do this, then go to the next one. Don’t limit yourself to an attorney you think you can afford.
In any case, you really need legal advice. I am not an attorney.
-
Anonymous
Thank you!
Results
-
