6 studies to be retracted by scientists at Dana-Farber
The Harvard-affiliated cancer hospital will also correct an additional 31 studies as part of an ongoing investigation.
Scientists at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston are planning to retract six studies and will correct an additional 31 as part of an ongoing investigation into image duplications and discrepancies in dozens of papers from some of its leading researchers.
A post on For Better Science, a blog focused on scientific integrity, flagged potential problems in papers co-written by top scientists and executives at the Harvard-affiliated hospital. 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.
In addition to the pending retractions and corrections, one paper with a potential error is still under examination. Sixteen others relied on data collected at science laboratories outside Dana-Farber, and researchers at those labs have been made aware of the concerns, according to Barrett Rollins, the research integrity officer at Dana-Farber.
He added that not all of the allegations raised by the blog are correct. Three papers were found to not need any action.
“The presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive. That conclusion can only be drawn after a careful, fact-based examination which is an integral part of our response,” Rollins said in a statement. “Our experience is that errors are often unintentional and do not rise to the level of misconduct.”
Rollins is a co-author on three of the papers that were flagged by the blogger and has been recused from those reviews, according to Ellen Berlin, a spokeswoman for Dana-Farber.
It’s unclear whether the problems that triggered the retractions and corrections are 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 on academic institutions and publications.
“Jumping in and doing a large number of retractions and corrections is something that’s fairly aggressive,” said Nicholas Steneck, an expert on research ethics and an emeritus professor at the University of Michigan. “From my perspective as someone promoting 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 blogafter 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 searches by following threads, finding one researcher with publications he saw as suspect and then examining others by frequent collaborators.
When he noticed potentiallyproblematic studies from scientists at Dana-Farber, he began looking into work published by its top leaders, including president Laurie Glimcher and chief operating officer William Hahn. Glimcher was a co-author of four of the papers in which David flagged concerns, and Hahn is a co-author of 17 papers. Glimcher and Hahn did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Not all of the issues David found were new. Some had been flagged over a decade agoon PubPeer, a website where researchers comment on and critique papers after publication. The problems span the gamut from relatively minor concerns to more serious allegations of possible image manipulation. The integrity of scientific images is crucial because they areoften how data is presented in papers.
The Harvard Crimson and STAT News first reported on the investigation into papers by Dana-Farber researchers. David said he flagged issues with four additional papers to Dana-Farber administrators Monday morning.
Rollins said that researchers had already been reviewing potential data errors “in a number of the cases listed in the blog.”
Verifying that there are errors and correcting them are the first, and in many ways, simplest parts of the process. Science is done by teams, and the papers in question date back as far as 1998, meaning a careful investigation will be needed to determine the source of any errors.
“Was it one person that did it? Was it the atmosphere of the lab? That’s where it takes a lot of time to come in and figure out who actually was responsible,” Steneck said.
In general, the person listed first on a scientific paper, called the lead author, did most of the work. The last person named, known as the senior author, is generally the scientist whose lab and funding supported the work. The middle authors may have varying degrees of involvement and contributions that could range from crucial to more tenuous.
But scientific and medical publishing ethics typically say that each author should be accountable for the work.
Hidde Ploegh, an immunologist at Boston Children’s Hospital and the senior author of a 2005 paper flaggedon PubPeer as having an image discrepancy, said in an email that he was not aware of any problem with the paper.
“It is more than a little unfortunate that it is easy to lob these types of accusations anonymously without checking with the authors first,” Ploegh said in an email. “It creates an undeserved suggestion of malfeasance.”
Boaz Tirosh, a biochemist at Case Western Reserve University and the paper’s lead author, also said he had been unaware of the PubPeer questions, but defended thefigures that were questioned and added that the paper’s main finding “has been confirmed by multiple studies in the community.” Glimcher is a co-author on that paper.
While understanding the source of errors in each instance will probably take a lengthy investigation, Steneck said, he argues that the strident action Dana-Farber is taking to correct the scientific record is commendable.
“Elite knowledge in academic institutions [is]under attack at the present time, and the last thing you want to do is leave yourself in a vulnerable position when that comes up,” Steneck said. “So if this is an aggressive response by Dana-Farber, I think it’s exactly what they ought to do.”
Conversation
This discussion has ended. Please join elsewhere on Boston.com