Multiple Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Studies Retracted After Data Manipulation Detected
- by Amber Baker
- Published
- Bioethics
The reputation of the prestigious Harvard University-affiliated Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in Boston, Massachusetts is at stake after seven studies were retracted from the medical literature and over 30 papers were subject to corrections due to errors. The allegations, which involve image duplications and manipulations in biomedical research, first surfaced in January 2024 when microbiologist and science sleuth Sholto David, PhD wrote in a blog post claiming that errors and image manipulations littered dozens of papers by the renowned DFCI cancer researchers.1
The research from top scientists at the Institute “appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading,” Dr. David wrote.1
The DFCI promptly acknowledged the errors and announced six study retractions as well as corrections on 31 other papers, stating that the review process was already underway before David’s allegations came to light. Subsequently, at least one more study was retracted, garnering scrutiny and spotlighting Kenneth Anderson, MD, DFCI’s director and a senior author on six of the seven retracted studies.
While Dr. Anderson reportedly did not respond to multiple requests by NBC News for comment, the DFCI issued the following statement about the findings:
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. 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 issues. 2
Published Research Errors Point to Misconduct
The errors in the now-retracted studies and over 30 papers range from “sloppiness to really serious concerns,” David shared in his scathing critique of the DFCI’s published research. Microbiologist Elisabeth Bik, PhD echoed his sentiments after she reviewed several of the papers’ retraction statements and scientific images. She said the errors were not only serious but point to signs of misconduct. “The ones I’m looking at all have duplicated elements in the photos, where the photo itself has been manipulated,” Dr. Bik said.2
Stanford University President Resigns After Significant Flaws Found in Research
The allegations about the DFCI research mirror concerns raised in 2023 against former Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne, PhD, who resigned after “significant flaws” were found in his published research. Following the inquiry into his past work, it was ultimately concluded that five papers on which Dr. Tessier-Lavigne was a principal author included work by subordinate researchers who “either engaged in inappropriate manipulation of research data or engaged in deficient scientific practices, resulting in significant flaws in those papers.”3
Bik said of the findings, “[Tessier-Lavigne] should have supervised better. As a senior author in scientific papers, you’re not the person standing in the lab, but you’re ultimately responsible for the integrity of the work,” she said. In an open letter, Tessier-Lavigne said he was a victim who “showed too much trust in the work of students and postdoctoral researchers.”1
Any future work from Tessier-Lavigne will likely meet skepticism, Bik said. “It’s from different periods of his career. So it’s not just one person in one lab going rogue. It appears to be from different periods of his life, when he used to be at different labs, at UCSF, at Genentech. If he writes new papers, they will be—and should be—held to a higher standard and very thoroughly checked.”1
Science sleuths like David and Bik scavenge and analyze published research with the intent to find errors or fabrications. Growing concerns around published scientific papers with factual errors have become a focal point in recent years with technological advancements like Artificial Intelligence (AI), which makes it possible to detect human bias and error in previously unprecedented ways.2
David considers his sleuthing to be a hobby, comparing it to playing a game like “spot the difference” or completing a crossword. “It’s a puzzle,” he said in an interview, adding that he “enjoys looking at figures that show results of common biology experiments, like those involving cells, mice and western blots, a laboratory method that identifies proteins.”2
More Than 10,000 Medical Research Papers Retracted in 2023
Many critics and science sleuths are concerned that errors and “sloppiness” are becoming increasingly common in papers published in the medical literature and that research organizations not only sweep concerns under the rug but avoid or delay issuing the appropriate corrections. A December 2023 article published in Nature found that more than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 due to “manipulation of the peer review and publish process”—a record number of retractions in a single year. Bik said it is “highly unusual” to see such a highly-regarded U.S. institution have multiple papers retracted.4
“When you look at the amount of retractions and poor peer review in research today, the question is, what has happened to the quality standards we used to think existed in research?” said Nick Steneck, PhD, an emeritus professor at the University of Michigan and a science integrity expert.1
“For every one paper that is retracted, there are probably 10 that should be,” said Ivan Oransky, MD, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a database of 47,000-plus retracted studies. “Journals are not particularly interested in correcting the record,” Dr. Oransky said.5
“There’s lots of incentive to produce mounds of research and publish in these high-impact journals to make your name,” said Ferric Fang, MD, a microbiologist and professor at the University of Washington. “We’re incentivizing this kind of behavior.”1
According to NBC News, DNCI spokesperson Ellen Berlin declined to provide an updated list of current retractions and corrections for the institute to the network, citing that the numbers could shift and that the institute did not have control over the form, format or timing of corrections. “The point of sharing numbers with the public weeks ago was to make clear to the public that the DNCI had taken swift and decisive action with regard to the articles for which a Dana-Farber faculty member was primary author,” Berlin said.1
The growing number of study retractions and researchers’ alleged misconduct call into question the often quoted COVID pandemic proverb: “Trust the science.”
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:
No comments:
Post a Comment