The Scientist : NewsBlog Print: Misconduct from NIH postdoc
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Misconduct from NIH postdoc
Posted by Elie Dolgin
[Entry posted at 17th February 2009 02:35 PM GMT]

A Japanese researcher falsified figures in three published papers while working as a visiting postdoc at the NIH's National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) reported last week.

Kazuhiro Tanaka, a cancer researcher formerly at Kyushu University in Japan, fidgeted with Western blots, Northern blots, and gel shift assay images by duplicating bands in the results of three papers published from 2000 to 2002.

The dodgy studies stem from work done from 1996 to 1998 when Tanaka was a visiting postdoc in Yoshihiko Yamada's lab at the NIDCR investigating transcriptional regulation of type II and type XI collagen genes in mouse and rat cells.

The fudged figures were included in one paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC) in 2000 (with Tanaka as a middle author), which identified a cartilage-specific enhancer in the first intron of the collagen gene, Col11a2, and has been cited 43 times according to ISI, and two papers in Molecular and Cellular Biology (MCB) in 2000 and 2002 (with Tanaka as the first author), which characterized zinc finger factors that negatively regulate cartilage-specific expression of Col11a2 and another collagen gene, Col2a1, and have been cited 39 and 18 times, respectively.

In 2006, the papers' authors issued a correction for the problematic figure in the JBC study and retracted figures in both MCB papers, although the authors maintain that they stand by the basic results of the papers. "Some figures needed to be corrected, but overall the conclusions I still feel are correct," Yamada told The Scientist.

Yamada learned of the image manipulations after someone in his lab noticed that some of the figures looked "very strange," he said. When Yamada questioned Tanaka about the figures, he was told that a "personal friend" in Japan carried out the experiments. Although Yamada was given the friend's name, neither he nor the NIH investigators could locate her.

The NIH's Office of Intramural Research conducted an inquiry from January to June 2005 in which a committee interviewed Tanaka in person in the US with the help of a translator. "[Tanaka] claimed that somebody else had done all the fabrication," Joan Schwartz, the NIH's intramural research integrity officer, told The Scientist. "To be honest, we don't know that there ever was such a person." The inquiry committee tentatively concluded that Tanaka was guilty of misconduct, although they couldn't prove it, Schwartz said. "We ended the case at the point thinking we couldn't go any further."

The committee sent its findings to the ORI, which probed the datasets and concluded that the image manipulations were carried out during Tanaka's time at the NIDCR, not in Japan. The NIH then established a formal investigation from January to August 2007, at which time Tanaka returned to the US with a lawyer for another interview. "We finally concluded that, yes, it had been he who had committed most of the misconduct," said Schwartz.

Although certain figures have already been corrected or retracted, Schwartz said she is now working with Yamada to completely retract the two MCB papers, and to correct one more figure in the JBC paper. "Now that we have the [ORI's] final findings, I'm working with [Yamada] to sort out the final wording to send to the journals to say that the [MCB] papers should be retracted," she said.

Tanaka, who holds both a PhD and an MD, was working at Kyushu University together with Yukihide Iwamoto, and published papers as recently as January, but according to Yamada he has since moved to a private clinic in the Kumamoto Prefecture of Kyushu Island and is no longer conducting research. Tanaka and Iwamoto did not respond to email requests for interviews from The Scientist.

According to the ORI report, Tanaka acknowledged that original data relating to the falsified figures were missing, though he did not admit misconduct. As part of the settlement agreement, Tanaka is barred from performing research funded by US taxpayers until 2012.


Related stories:
  • Images faked by UCSF postdoc
    [16th February 2009]
  • UCLA prof falsified cancer data
    [9th February 2009]

  •  

    Rate this article

    Rating: 4.20/5 (25 votes )





    Sometimes the pressure to secure funds
    by Bob Smiley

    [Comment posted 2011-11-27 18:33:21]
    Sometimes the pressure to secure funds for research will push scientists into falsifying data to make their research look more promising than it actually it. There was another similar story about another japanese doctor who faked data in order to gain recognition in recent times.

    Bob - LINK



    Research Misconduct is ignored within NIH
    by Jerry Cook

    [Comment posted 2009-04-30 09:07:37]
    Records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act appeal demonstrate that a negative mutagenicity assay is falsely attributed to the test article in National Toxicology Program Technical Report 494 to hide the biological significance of mutagenic contamination in the non-mutagenic study material (anthraquinone).

    The unambiguous documentary evidence of misconduct on the part of several NTP researchers has been ignored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NIH. The Department of Health and Human Services Information Quality Guidelines have been rendered impotent by the unchecked ability of officials within NIH to simply ignore evidence that published information fails to meet the objectivity guidelines. Even the recently-appointed NIEHS director has chosen to turn a blind eye, probably because NIEHS also ?cares a lot more about increasing its public reputation than its morals? as suggested in the 2009-02-17 post below.

    The Director of the Division of Investigative Oversight at ORI has stated in a letter denying a request to investigate misconduct associated with NTP Technical Report 494 that ?I also note the ORI does not have authority to conduct the investigation you request. Our role is limited by departmental policy to conducting oversight review of investigations conducted by the institutions where the alleged misconduct took place.? Research integrity appears to be demanded only from those outside of NIH.

    When interns and postdocs observe cynical disregard for research integrity within NIH, why wouldn't they conclude that misconduct is a legitimate means of achieving professional recognition and advancement?



    Grant incentive are the problem
    by Stephen Boyd

    [Comment posted 2009-04-26 18:21:05]
    It seems more and more that the driving force to falsify figures is done so in order to get grants. Although this may not have been the case in this situation, it does provide a problem for anyone who wants to report it, but will not because they don't want to suffer the consequences. Until the financial incentive is removed, this will continue to occur repeatedly and "Ellens" of the world will never speak the truth.

    Stephen
    LINK">Philadelphia Wedding Photographer



    What's really disturbing to consider is...
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-02-18 17:48:31]
    From this article, it sounds like the only reason why this case came to light is that the figures looked "very strange". What I'd like to know is, how many Photoshop users couldn't manage to fake a band on a gel? I mean, the folks at Adobe should hang their heads in shame... But it makes me wonder whether for every one case that is caught through sloppy editing, are there many others that are not?



    Obligation
    by Curt Sigmund

    [Comment posted 2009-02-17 15:34:33]
    Each of you have an obligation to report such misconduct. If you are acting in good faith, you must be protected. How can you complain, if you sit tacitly by allowing this behavior.



    It's not that simple, Adam
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-02-17 13:47:38]
    In a culture where a whistle-blower, even if right and justified, is perceived as a troublemaker or a disgruntled loser, Ellen would be reluctant to do so. It is also a very draining and time-consuming process that most people do not find worth fighting for, unless too much is at stakes for them personally. The powers that be clearly know this, so they continue to commit and get away with their misdeeds and others just watch and keep silent. Trust me, I've been both a witness and a victim to a very unscruplous "scientist" at a major research university where such unethical behaviors are more of a norm than an exception, I'm afraid, because the university cares a lot more about increasing its public reputation than its morals.



    Report it Ellen
    by Adam Smith

    [Comment posted 2009-02-17 13:23:12]
    If you know this for a fact, Ellen, than you presumably have quite substantial evidence. It seems it is incumbent on you to report this. Why have you yet to do so?



    There would be more, and bigger fish caught if
    by Ellen Hunt

    [Comment posted 2009-02-17 11:42:02]
    The NIH has a CFR that sets the statute of limitations on such things at 6 years.

    I know for a fact, that there are highly placed professors who head major departments at top universities who participate in such things in order to get their next grant. And I know that more than one person has been hounded out of science for the crime of reporting it, with the collaboration of the university administration. The administration will always do this, because they consider it in their financial interest to hush up anything that can be hushed up.

    All too often, by the time the person (usually a graduate student) gets to a place where they can report it, that statute of limitations has expired. And yet, the records are still available to check.

    This post-doc got caught because the professor was informed and was honest enough to pursue it. That professor should have checked the images better. I find it curious that such erroneous images could get by without comment. And I have to wonder about the timing of this, and what really went on.

    You see, I find it impossible to believe that the person who brought it to the professor's attention just happened to do it 5.5 years after the fact. From the timing, I suspect that a grad student knew immediately, but was somehow frightened into being quiet. I don't know, but I would appreciate some in-depth reporting on exactly how this really got exposed. It doesn't quite add up.



    Comment on this blog