Munich

An official investigation has cleared a prominent German neuroscientist of manipulating data in one of two scientific papers under scrutiny.

The allegations against Heinz Breer, a molecular neuroscientist at the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, were made earlier this year, prompting an investigation by the DFG, Germany's main funding agency. Breer says that his reputation has already been damaged by reports in German newspapers about the allegations (see Nature 422, 794; 2003).

The DFG's investigating committee this month issued an interim report on one of the two papers co-authored by Breer (S. Schreiber, J. Fleischer, H. Breer and I. Boekhoff J. Biol. Chem. 275, 24115–24123; 2000). It ruled that the paper contains “deficiencies of a technical nature”, although it attributes these to sloppiness rather than an intention to mislead.

The paper is a study of the molecular processes by which the brain interprets odours. One apparent error identified by the committee relates to the analysis of data on the accumulation of a signalling molecule under different experimental conditions. The second involved mislabelling of negative controls in western blots — a method for identifying proteins separated by chromatography.

Breer, who won the prestigious Leibniz research award in 1998, has previously conceded minor problems with the paper. The experiments were mostly carried out by Ingrid Boekhoff, a young researcher in Breer's lab, and by an undergraduate student. The committee's report says the case “makes clear the importance of making young scientists familiar with the principles of good scientific practice”. Boekhoff has agreed to send a correction to the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Wieland Huttner, a molecular neurobiologist at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden, is one of two reviewers appointed by the DFG to investigate the case . He says that some of the data preparation was “sloppy”, but that there is no evidence of cheating. He adds that the publicity surrounding the case, including German newspaper reports of the allegations, has been “unfair” to both Breer and Boekhoff.

The DFG committee is expected to rule on the second paper (J. Noé and H. Breer J. Neurochem. 71, 2286–2293; 1998) in the next few months.