Bookmark and Share

Neuroscientist censured for misconduct

Researcher falsified data while a postdoc at Dartmouth, according to ORI


[Published 20th August 2007 03:59 PM GMT]


A researcher at the University of Puerto Rico was censured last week by the NIH Office of Research Integrity for work he conducted as a postdoc at Dartmouth College between 1997 and 2000.

According to a notice published in the Federal Register on August 14, Juan Carlos Jorge-Rivera "knowingly and intentionally falsified" data in 11 experiments measuring neurophysiological activity of GABAnergic currents in response to anabolic steroids. The resulting publication contained falsified data in two figures, according to the notice. Jorge-Rivera told The Scientist that the paper is in the process of being retracted. It has been cited 30 times.

According to the ORI notice, Jorge-Rivera is ineligible to receive funding from any Federal agency between January 11, 2007, and January 11, 2009. For three years following, he will be required to submit "a certification that the data he provides are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived" along with any grant applications or manuscripts. He is also prohibited from serving on peer review committees or consulting with the Public Health Service, parent agency of the NIH, between June 23, 2007, and June 22, 2010.

Jorge-Rivera said he accepts the findings of the investigation, but insisted that although he made errors in the experiments, he did not intentionally falsify the data in question.

Jorge-Rivera worked as a postdoc in the lab of Leslie Henderson at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire, from 1997 to 2000. In January, 2001, he returned to the University of Puerto Rico, where he had studied as an undergraduate, and where he is now an associate professor in the department of anatomy and neurobiology.

Henderson declined to comment, and the university declined to discuss the case. "Dartmouth expects its researchers to report their findings honestly and ethically. Dartmouth cooperated fully with this investigation," a university official wrote in an Email statement to The Scientist.

Jorge-Rivera said he first learned of the case against him was when he received a letter from Dartmouth in the Spring of 2003, which stated that Henderson had reason to believe he had falsified data.

Jorge-Rivera traveled to Dartmouth that Fall to meet with the committee investigating the case and go over their findings, he said. Afterwards, he and Henderson went over the data "trace by trace" in a separate meeting in her office.

"Leslie has scientific reason to believe That data [are] not true," he said, because when others tried to replicate the results, "they couldn't see the modulations I was claiming."

In the study, Jorge-Rivera and a student in the lab transfected human embryonic kidney cells with different GABA A subunits and then exposed the cells to agonists. "Everything was done by hand. The timing, when I changed tubing from one solution to another, sometimes was not sufficient to allow the drug to be perfused."

Also, because the signal was small, he explained, he amplified it to see the recording. But when the data were pooled, recordings with different gains were mistakenly combined in the analysis. Although recordings from only a small number of cells were flawed, he said, a disproportionate number of those traces made up the data in the two questionable figures in the paper.

After the meeting at Dartmouth, Jorge-Rivera said, he received a letter from the university saying that the committee had found there were "human errors" in the work, but cleared him of misconduct.

But he then received a letter from the NSF, which had funded his postdoc, informing him that the agency was conducting a formal investigation of misconduct. A letter from the NIH stating that agency was aware of the charges followed a few months later, he said.

He responded to the NSF's charges, he said, and a committee then flew out to Puerto Rico to interview him in an all-day meeting. In January of this year, he received a letter from the NSF stating he had been found guilty of misconduct.

Although the experiments "could have been done better," Jorge-Rivera said, he was unable to demonstrate to the committee that he had not manipulated the data. "If it's difficult to prove misconduct, it's equally difficult to prove otherwise," he said.


Alla Katsnelson
mail@the-scientist.com

Editor's note (posted August 20): An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Juan Carlos Jorge-Rivera first received a letter informing him of Dartmouth's investigation in April, 2004. We regret the error.

Links within this article:

Federal Register notice of misconduct findings
http://thefederalregister.com/d.p/2007-08-14-E7-15881

J.C. Jorge-Rivera et al., "Anabolic steroids induce region-and subunit-specific modulations of GABA receptor mediated currents in the rat forebrain," Journal of Neurophysiology, June, 2000.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/10848550

Leslie Henderson
physiol/faculty/henderson.html'>http://www.dartmouth.edu/physiol/faculty/henderson.html




Advertisement

 

Rate this article

Rating: 3.00/5 (4 votes )





Things will continue to happen unless PIs are taken into scene
by Cynos Le

[Comment posted 2007-08-27 03:05:55]
The above comments have pointed out the roles of the PIs in submitting a paper. In addition they all noted that "paper is money" in terms of getting fundings and grants.

If we do not take the PI to the scene, things will continue going like this:

Due to high competitiveness in getting funding, here and there PIs pressure on postdocs and grad students to "produce" (including falsification) data in favor of his/her theory. The paper will help them having advantages while applying for grants (at that time).

If later thing get caught, just blame it to the postdocs, grad students then PI are safe, University are safe.

The fact is that the funding obtained due to the (false) paper is spent at the UNIVERSITY and PI's Lab, should they stay out of the scene?

Additionally, if PI is not to blame, they may ignore possible (foreseeable) falsification which, at present, may give them the advantage. They ignore it because later if it get caught, there is postdocs/grad students to take the blame, not them!




PIs should share blame
by Mentorless

[Comment posted 2007-08-22 00:06:01]
I agree completely with the 2 previous comments. Far too often, the PI's responsibility is not even considered, let alone examined. Usually, the PI slinks off to another institution secretly - sometimes with a promotion - before the case is public.
In the case of Kui Zhu at Cleveland Clinic Foundation, PI Yan Xu moved to an endowed professorship at Indiana U! Was Indiana U aware 3 papers (Science, JBC, Nature Cell Biol) were in doubt, at least?
Publishing falsified and/or fabricated data is a sign of gross incompetence. PIs should be reviewing the raw data continually. Scientific as well as public responsibilities apply here. Overseeing the spending of public funds is part of running a NIH-funded laboratory.
Since there is no shortage of competent and honest PIs, why are there no penalties or repercussions for the incompetent PIs?



Postdocs are trainees-PIs should be more involved in data interpretation
by Carmen L. Cadilla

[Comment posted 2007-08-21 15:34:31]
It seems to me that the PI in this Darmouth lab should have picked up any mistakes before submitting the publication. Postdocs are trainees, they have to be supervised as you do graduate students until you are convinced they can do things on their own and you can trust them with all data analysis.



PIs should share the blame
by Concerned Scientist

[Comment posted 2007-08-20 14:18:14]
In this case and the recent case at Penn the postdoc has suffered 100% of the blame and consequences of falsifying data. Where are the PIs? They are the corresponding authors on the journal submissions and the grant applications. It is their lab and everything in their lab, especially the presentation of data should be their responsibility. If they receive all the benefits of data, they should also have to suffer the consequences of bad data. The PIs should be more engaged in the data so that false data can be identified before publication and not after only because the observations can't be reproduced. It is too convenient for the PIs to point fingers at postdocs long after they have left the lab just so that the reputation of the PI isn't tarnished.



Presumption of ....
by Christopher A. Baker

[Comment posted 2007-08-20 13:16:43]
In these cases, is a person innocent until proven guilty or vice versa?



The News


Front Cover

Register for FREE Online Access

  • »Current issue
  • »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
  • »Daily news and monthly contents emails

Register »

Subscribe to the Magazine

  • »Monthly print issues
  • »Unlimited online access
  • »Special offers on books, apparel, and more

Subscribe »

Library Subscriptions
Recommend to a Librarian

Masthead | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy
© 1986-2012 The Scientist