Three studies published by a University of Wisconsin (UW) geneticist who resigned last year amid accusations of fraud have been replicated, according to her former collaborators.
The researcher, Elizabeth Goodwin, was investigated by the university last year after her students accused her of misusing data on a grant application. The investigation also raised questions about data in three of Goodwin's papers, which the investigators could not verify. Since then, however, the papers' other authors and the editors of the journals in which they were published have confirmed that the results are scientifically valid. The investigation was turned over to the Office of Research Integrity at the NIH, but the ORI has not issued a final ruling.
The authors of a 2005 Developmental Biology paper, including Goodwin, published a corrigendum in April after Philip Iannaccone's laboratory at Northwestern University's Children Memorial Research Center redid the experiments with new reagents and different methods. The results "came out very clearly" in support of Goodwin's original findings, Iannaccone told The Scientist.
The two other questioned papers, one in Molecular Cell (which has been cited 10 times) and one in Nature Structural and Molecular Biology (which has been cited 24 times), are also considered scientifically sound. "The main conclusion of the [Nature Structural and Molecular Biology] paper we validated," Stephane Richard, a professor at McGill University and who was not a co-author on the original paper, told The Scientist.
"There is no indication to suggest the findings don't hold," Boyana Konforti, editor of Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, told The Scientist. The findings described RNA binding sequences recognized by the protein GLD-1, which represses expression of its targets.
William Mellon, the associate dean for research policy at UW, said he corresponded with authors from the Molecular Cell paper and the editor of the journal, who concluded the paper needed no corrections. "That issue has been resolved," Mellon told The Scientist. The paper described the pathway by which tra-2 mRNA (whose protein is a transmembrane receptor involved in sex determination in C. elegans) exits the nucleus into the cytoplasm. Editors at Molecular Cell declined to comment.
Iannaccone's and Goodwin's laboratories collaborated in studying RNA binding protein homologs in mice and worms, respectively. "The main point of the original paper was that quaking protein regulates [the transcription factor] GLI1 by repressing translation. All that [mouse] work was done in Chicago and didn't involve Goodwin's lab at all," Iannaccone said. After the UW investigation suggested several papers, including Iannaccone's, contained questionable figures, Iannaccone recruited worm experts to assist in replicating the worm experiments.
Throughout the replication of the experiments, Iannaccone said Goodwin was kept abreast of progress and signed on to the corrigendum, but they have not spoken. Goodwin did not respond to two Email requests for comment.
The university investigation began after several of Goodwin's lab members noted inaccuracies in a grant application and alerted university administrators. Mellon said data for several figures could not be found during the investigation, and he alerted the journal editors and coauthors. It "didn't mean they were false, but [the investigation] couldn't verify them," he said.
Goodwin resigned from UW and the school passed the investigation on to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the National Institutes of Health, said Mellon. Chris Pascal, director of ORI, wrote in an Email to The Scientist that federal law prohibits him from disclosing information regarding an investigation, including whether or not one is underway.
Konforti, Mellon and others said they were aware an investigation began, but did not know the progress. "I will tell you that they are considering several charges on two separate grants [with] falsified information she gave to graduate students," Mellon said.
Jamie Williamson, a professor at Scripps Research Institute and Goodwin's collaborator on the Nature Structural and Molecular Biology paper, said he could not have predicted that Goodwin might have committed scientific fraud. "It's tragic how it all went down," he told The Scientist.
Iannaccone said he is concerned for the students in Goodwin's lab whose careers have been tarnished by the situation. Still, he is pleased their work has been validated. "I am very very very happy to report we verified those conclusions," Iannaccone said.
Kerry Grens
mail@the-scientist.com
Links within this article:
H. Black, "Geneticist investigated for misconduct," The Scientist, June 2, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23520
Lakiza O. et al., "STAR proteins quaking-6 and GLD-1 regulate translation of the homologues GLI1 and tra-1 through a conserved RNA 3'UTR-based mechanism," Developmental Biology, November, 2005.
http:/www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/16198329
Lakiza O. et al., "Corrigendum to STAR proteins quaking-6 and GLD-1 regulate translation of the homologues GLI1 and tra-1 through a conserved RNA 3'UTR-based mechanism," Developmental Biology, April 19, 2007
http://www.sciencedirect.com
Philip Iannaccone
http://www.northwestern.edu/nuin/fac/iannaccone.htm
S.Kuersten et al., "NXF-2, REF-1, and REF-2 affect the choice of nuclear export pathway for tra-2 mRNA in C. elegans," Molecular Cell, June 4, 2004
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/15175155
S.P. Ryder, et al. "RNA target specificity of the STAR/GSG domain post-transcriptional regulatory protein GLD-1," Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, January, 2004.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/14718919
Stephane Richard
http://www.mcgill.ca/microimm/department/associate_adjunct_prof/richard/
Boyana Konforti
http://www.nature.com/nsmb/about/about_eds/index.html#boyana
J. Couzin, "Truth and consequences," Science, 313:1222-6, 2006.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5791/1222
Jamie Williamson
http://williamson.scripps.edu/web-content/people.html
Advertisement
Rate this article
|
The News |
|||||||
Register for FREE Online Access
- »Current issue
- »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
- »Daily news and monthly contents emails
Subscribe to the Magazine
- »Monthly print issues
- »Unlimited online access
- »Special offers on books, apparel, and more
[Comment posted 2007-08-28 10:27:06]
1) How to help the wrongly accused scientist to get back his/her reputation and stature and enable him/her to function again? Science and the society they serve cannot afford to miss their valuable contributions.
2) How best to identify the accusers whose motive is simply to accuse and destroy for all the wrong reasons from those who are (as in the case of Dr.Goodwin) truly interested in exposing fraud to protect good science?
3) How to deal with unethical accusers , what measures are to be taken to advertise their wrong doing? Do we make them openly apologize in an international conference appropriate for that scientific discipline? What consequences should they face? How can we do this in a way that would not scare away the honest whistle blowers but at the same time deter similar incidents of misbehaviour?
4) How best to reward the honest whistle-blowers who have done great service to Science and society by exposing fraud? Care must also be taken to see that we do not encourage zealots.
The Office of Integrity at NIH are doing a good job of investigating these cases. An organized effort is also being made by the Editors of Journals and by the universities. Nevertheless, improvements may be needed in preventing such occurences.
Suggestions: 1)The Journal of Endocrinology for example has a report that details "what constitutes fraud ". This report is included in the Instructions to Authors. All journals could adopt similar measures and have the authors sign the report endorsing that they have read the contents.
2) To prevent wrong and vindictive accusations- a report detailing the responsibility of the accuser could be prepared and every accuser could be asked to read, understand and sign the same. The report should also detail the consequences the accuser will meet if the accusations are proved to be baseless. This needs to be done with care in such a way that it does not deter an accuser who is honestly concerned about the situation and has data in support of his/her accusations.
One of the comments suggests spies be placed in the lab to work and observe. Such measures will y take away the freedom that majority of good, honest scientists enjoy and require to be productive. It will only create an ambiance akin to living under a dictatorship where even family members are forced to spy on each other.
All in all one cannot instill a good value system to each and every scientist. It is simply a personal responsibility. Medical doctors take an oath of honorable and responsible service to humanity, should scientists do the same? One thing is certain; a fraudulent scientist would never experience the sheer joy that comes with unravelling a mystery of nature, of solving a problem. That experience of personsl joy of the scientist can never be destroyed by false accusations. It stays with the scientist for ever.
[Comment posted 2007-08-27 17:00:37]
Our detractors hammer us to death with the fact we can give black and white answers and they seem to be able too. The reason they can give such solid opinions is their peers don't keep score when their wrong.
The green lobby doesn't suffer any consequences when their stand on atomic power plant made the world turn to coal and put far more radiation in the air than all the nuclear events in the world including bombs not to mention CO2 and particulates. Their answer is to make food in to fuel no matter if for every 100 units of energy that goes in you get back 116 in gasohol and use up enough land to net 60 gallons of alcohol after they pay back what it take to grow the corn and make into fuel it uses 7,500 pounds of corn or enough to give a man 1,000 calories a day for a couple of years, run a 18 wheeler 15 miles or my car 1,300 miles. Then they blame meat for the food problem the best source of protein there is.
Gordon
[Comment posted 2007-08-27 14:42:38]
On the other hand, there are few professors who are perfectly expert with their paperwork. And there are outrageous travesties of justice like the case of Thomas Butler in Texas.
Bluntly, I do not think that science is policing itself now. Major changes are needed. The debate we should be having is what those changes will be. One should be a division that does audits of work, randomly, just like the IRS does to obtain estimates of the degree of fraud, and the kinds of fraud in various disciplines. Some of those audits should include undercover operations to place people into labs for as long as a year so they can find out what is really going on.
A related change should be random audits of professors to find out how graduate students are treated by them and a set of standards for same. Graduate students become the next generation of academics.