The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Stem cell fraud...again?
Posted by Jef Akst
[Entry posted at 6th August 2009 04:03 PM GMT]
Stem cell researchers at the University of Minnesota are once again under investigation for falsifying data, New Scientist reported this week.
The paper reported that stem cells from the inner ears of mice could be differentiated to create neurons and sensory hair cells. Based on their own investigation, New Scientist identified one photograph of a gel that appeared to have duplicated bands spliced into the image, and two other images that seemed identical, though they were meant to represent results for two different genes. Further exploration uncovered possibly duplicated images in six additional papers published by Lin between 2001 and 2007. In April, New Scientist alerted the university to their findings, and an investigation was launched last month. Last October, a panel at the University of Minnesota ruled that Morayma Reyes, a former PhD student in the lab of stem cell researcher Catherine Verfaillie, had falsified data in a 2001 Blood paper. Blood retracted the paper in March of this year, citing "duplications and other irregularities in multiple figures." In early 2007, New Scientist questioned the validity and originality of the data in a 2002 Nature paper from Verfaillie's lab reporting the first adult pluripotent stem cells, and that June, Nature retracted the figures in question. Verfaillie was the corresponding author on both those papers. She was also an author on the 2008 American Journal of Physiology paper with Lin. Correction (August 7): The original version of this article indicated that Reyes was the subject of the investigation regarding the 2002 Nature paper. While she was a co-author on the paper, she was not the specific focus of the inquiry. The Scientist regrets the error. Related stories: [7th October 2008] [13th June 2007] [26th February 2007] |
Rate this article
fraud comes in many forms
by Shaffer Degrassi
[Comment posted 2010-07-02 04:21:13]
[Comment posted 2010-07-02 04:21:13]
I just hope that this issue will soon come to an end. Let us not lose hope that scientists will soon perfect their stem cell research. But until then, do not present false hope to the public so that you will not get scrutinized. When publishing a questionable research, it is simply not enough to have a LINK">Dallas shredding company destroy the evidence of your mistake. This matter is recorded and instillied in the minds of your expectators so be weary.
Designer in Philadelphia Cole Haan: Just arrived, meet prudence
by Rafaela Canete-Soler
[Comment posted 2009-08-12 10:10:04]
[Comment posted 2009-08-12 10:10:04]
Hey guys,
I just received an announcement from one of my favored designers in Philadelphia, Cole Haan.
Fall 2009 Fashion's slogan is: Meet Prudence.
We know we will succeed in our vision for Penn Medicine Fashion because our aspirations are your aspirations. And we have many examples of great things happening here when the aspirations of philanthropists match up with great ideas. Who will join their ranks in the years ahead? What passionate people will make more revolutionary ideas reality? There is no shortage of great ideas to pursue. Let us begin.
RED is NOT ALLOWED, Sorry !. But is CHEAP !.
The watchdog is also a crook
by Michael Pyshnov
[Comment posted 2009-08-12 06:22:44]
[Comment posted 2009-08-12 06:22:44]
It seems that there is really no desire to end fraud in science. Fraud is at all levels:
LINK
LINK
& again is right!
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-08-11 01:27:12]
[Comment posted 2009-08-11 01:27:12]
Click the name Morayma Reyes in the article and you will be transported to her Web page at the U. of Washington med center. She is an Asst. Prof., MD PhD. Specializes in stem cell research. What is reality? Feh!
Fraud again, and again, and again..
by null null
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 17:10:40]
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 17:10:40]
The editor of Stem Cells and Development is currently retracting a paper by researchers at Newcastle University. It appears that palgiarism is the issue, but the British Fertility Society had previously expressed doubt about the paper's claim that the first human sperm had been created from embryonic stem cells. This claim had been reported worldwide in the yellow press.
It time for scientific misconduct to be criminalised and those accused afforded due process. Scientists haven't got what it takes to be amateur police detecting misconduct in their spare time. If misconduct is detected, the ensuing quaint wrist slapping is occassionally followed by a lingering of a name on the internet.
The public needs protection.
Peter Darroch
LINK
It time for scientific misconduct to be criminalised and those accused afforded due process. Scientists haven't got what it takes to be amateur police detecting misconduct in their spare time. If misconduct is detected, the ensuing quaint wrist slapping is occassionally followed by a lingering of a name on the internet.
The public needs protection.
Peter Darroch
LINK
Oh no!
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 16:01:13]
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 16:01:13]
I sure hope this doesn't become associated with their names in future Google searches... That would be *really* tragic.
Who will take care of severe problems in the very hot iPS research?
by Shi Liu
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 14:49:19]
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 14:49:19]
I have reported many problems in iPS research (see publications at LINK ).
These publications revealed many contradictions existed in the high-profile publications on iPS cells (see examples: Can Yamanaka Explain His Contradictory Statements? LINK ) and even obvious data problems such as
Amazingly "high quality" gel images and indistinguishable PCR bands from different iPS cells (LINK ). However, all "top" journals have rejected my submissions including one entitled "Understanding the Nature and Risk of Incorrectly Programmed Stem Cells (iPSCs)" (LINK ).
These publications revealed many contradictions existed in the high-profile publications on iPS cells (see examples: Can Yamanaka Explain His Contradictory Statements? LINK ) and even obvious data problems such as
Amazingly "high quality" gel images and indistinguishable PCR bands from different iPS cells (LINK ). However, all "top" journals have rejected my submissions including one entitled "Understanding the Nature and Risk of Incorrectly Programmed Stem Cells (iPSCs)" (LINK ).
& again!
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 12:15:39]
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 12:15:39]
Now let me guess...Lin, Reyes & Verfaillie are all still in the lab, doing research & getting ready to publish again. Would like to see some consequences but the community won't let it happen & if it did the journalists would never report it. Am I jaded? You bet.
'Falsifying data
by anonymous poster
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 11:50:53]
[Comment posted 2009-08-06 11:50:53]
Underlying causes:
1. Sloppy supervision in house, internal refereeing missing by trustworthy colleagues - forgetting the paranoia that they will 'steal' the thunder or leak it?
2. Careless (i) preliminary screeners- perhaps not quite so widely read - the most undesirable development - recently in the publishing world.
(ii) referees- can't know everything- editors are too busy-leaving it to juniors- overconfidence in a few choice referees- if chums of the authors- all the worse: I have discovered/identified (reported to the Ed-in-Chief) a specialist Ed turning down a good paper using exactly the same method as the one approved by the specialist editor - turned out to be a coauthor of one the papers b the accepted authors.
Example of sloppy refreeing: Highly disitinguished- but, if not au fait, and can't see the difference between numbers of entities on cells of two different sizes- blindingly obvious that for comparison one must take the entities per unit area!
I despair. All distinguished editors have been informed of this situation that needs sorting out by COPE
1. Sloppy supervision in house, internal refereeing missing by trustworthy colleagues - forgetting the paranoia that they will 'steal' the thunder or leak it?
2. Careless (i) preliminary screeners- perhaps not quite so widely read - the most undesirable development - recently in the publishing world.
(ii) referees- can't know everything- editors are too busy-leaving it to juniors- overconfidence in a few choice referees- if chums of the authors- all the worse: I have discovered/identified (reported to the Ed-in-Chief) a specialist Ed turning down a good paper using exactly the same method as the one approved by the specialist editor - turned out to be a coauthor of one the papers b the accepted authors.
Example of sloppy refreeing: Highly disitinguished- but, if not au fait, and can't see the difference between numbers of entities on cells of two different sizes- blindingly obvious that for comparison one must take the entities per unit area!
I despair. All distinguished editors have been informed of this situation that needs sorting out by COPE
Comment on this blog