Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 5 March 2008 | Nature 452, 13 (2008) | doi:10.1038/452013a
News
Nobel prizewinner's paper retracted
Failure to reproduce results deals blow to work on olfactory networks.
A paper in Nature co-authored by Nobel prizewinning scientist Linda Buck has been retracted after the researchers were unable to reproduce the results. The authors now report that they have found “inconsistencies” between the original data and the data published in 2001.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Sharing the credit and also the condemnation!!! How oculd someone got the co-first-authorship without providing the data? How could someone be a corresponding author without even getting hands "wet" in the lab? How many times we will see this unfair distribution of credit and condemnation? ------- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
This comment has been removed by the moderator
I applaud the authors' courage and efforts to correct the literature. Reading through this news piece, a fraud by the lead author is clearly implied in this case. There are, of course, many spectacular papers in the literature (NATURE included) later turned to be spectacularly wrong. But authors may have made honest mistake. I am compelled to ask shouldn't those papers be retracted too, to correct the literature? Or should those wrong data, resulting from honest mistake, be left as is and continue being cited for wrong reason?
This seems to be one more example of the pressure to publish something in so-called high-impact factor journals to continue as "active and respectable" scientist. It is surprising that only after detecting the "inconsistency", comes the clarification that the 2nd co-1st author contributed only the experimental design and reagents! Obviously, we need to redefine the importance of authorship. In good old times, 1st or 2nd authorships etc hardly made a difference and in most cases, all authors were felt responsible for what was in the paper. In any case, it is nice that the senior author has thought it appropriate to retract the paper. It would be further nice to own some of the responsibility for this error or fraud, whatever it turns out to be. Subhash C. Lakhotia (lakhotia@bhu.ac.in)
Scientific fraud is common enough; it could happen to almost anyone. The only surprise here is that the team was small, and almost all authors belonged to a single lab - it should have been harder for one author to mislead the others in this case. Nonetheless, there will unavoidably be more instances of misrepresentation or outright fabrication in the future. And again, the co-authors of the fraudster might end up looking bad, regardless of whether or not they were party to the deception. It's therefore important that journals compulsorily list author contributions at the time of publication. That way, there will be less confusion about who's responsible for each aspect of the paper when things go wrong, and also of course when things go right. Maybe this is a bad idea because intellectual leadership and ownership of ideas are often contentious issues. But the nuts and bolts of who performed the experiment, who analysed and interpreted the results and who wrote or co-wrote the manuscript are usually uncontroversial.
for this case, if you read the retraction declaration,you will find the second co-first author not only provide reagent and experiment design. he or she constructed the gene target vector and produced the knockout or knockin mice, this contribution should be enough for being listed as co-first author. The main point is there is inconsistence between the original data and the data presented in the figure, so it implies the 1st author intended to present fake data.I fully understand sometimes we will get wrong result for reasons such as unknown contamination, or inappropriate operation or make wrong interpretation on our result based on our knowledge limitation. But it should not be this case. someone also argued that the corresponding author should take the responsibility. But I believe that most of the boss in the world will not check the original data, especially some value,they only read the data which has been sorted as a figure. This is based on the trust between the members of the group.
Paradox of the story is that the people who do all this get responsible jobs easily in academia or industry just because they have such a high profile publications to their credit. I do not think there is really any system exists that punishes them on their unethical behaviour (when it becomes obvious, as in this case) as opposed to the situation when they are rewarded for their so called "achievements". The take home message is that the members of selection committees for tenure track researcher positions should expand their criteria to be able to give a chance to someone who is a genuine researcher rather than just confining to someone who has published a paper in some top tier journal. Also, in this case the courage of the senior author is praiseworthy as it is pretty understandable for a senior author not to really know the darker side of a shining story going on in the lab but what about those who took the credit as co-first authors at the time of manuscript submission but now getting away by making the excuse that they were only involved with providing the reagents and experiments planning. It raises another question: should such person really have shared the first authorship of the paper?
Paradox of the story is that the people who do all this get responsible jobs easily in academia or industry just because they have such a high profile publications to their credit. I do not think there is really any system exists that punishes them on their unethical behaviour (when it becomes obvious, as in this case) as opposed to the situation when they are rewarded for their so called "achievements". The take home message is that the members of selection committees for tenure track researcher positions should expand their criteria to be able to give a chance to someone who is a genuine researcher rather than just confining to someone who has published a paper in some top tier journal. Also, in this case the courage of the senior author is praiseworthy as it is pretty understandable for a senior author not to really know the darker side of a shining story going on in the lab but what about those who took the credit as co-first authors at the time of manuscript submission but now getting away by making the excuse that they were only involved with providing the reagents and experiments planning. It raises another question: should such person really have shared the first authorship of the paper? Mahendra Kumar Singh (mahendra.singh@fccc.edu)
Retractions should be clearer on what are retracted!!! I still have a hard time to know that are retracted from this Nature Article. Are all the results in the 2001 publication in Nature made up? If that is the case, what sense does the corresponding has? Should she smell something fishy when she reviewed the work by others and then sign on her name as the corresponding author? Corresponding author should not just send paper for publication and collect award and then send retraction to blame others!!! That is irresponsible to science and immoral in ethics!!! Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz)
How much citation counts for the validity of a publication??? This retracted Nature article was cited over 138 times (and more citations will be added as it is usually the case for the retracted papers). What are the ‘odors’ of those earlier citations? When the initial suspicions showed up and what were the fates of the initial criticisms? I just noticed that this now retracted paper was even cited in Buck’s Nobel Lecture in 2004. Did this 2001 Nature publication have any impact on the later selection of a Nobel Prize for the ‘sense of smell’ work? Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz)
Like many of the readers, I was surprised to learn that it took seven years for a Nobel laureate's lab to realize that the original data were not consistent with the published figure. Equally, I was surprised to know that the original data were not carefully looked before publication of a paper. I am curious to know the first time when this inconsistence was discovered. All scientists, scientific editors and the whole scientific community should learn the lession from this. First, the corrsponding authors should be responsible for the originality of the data. In another word, no one should submit a paper without careful examination of the original data. For people like Linda Bulk should pay even more attention. The reputation is more important than one or two nature papers. Second, contribution of a paper from each author should be added to the paper. If the authors did not contribute the same intelligence to the data and the conclusion, they should not be described as the equal contribution authors. Third, editors should resist the temptation by powerful scientists to publish "hot" and "sex" papers. It has been rumored that some powerful scientists push their publications by calling the editiors to remove unfavorable reviewers. Fourth, there should be an online format in which all the reviewer's comments can be viewed by all readers. Furthermore, all readers should have the opportunity to make comments to a particular paper (like the comments in this format). Transparancy is critical for fairness in scientific publications. Finally, there are signifcant differences between ignornace and fabrication. If the publication was from early immature understanding of the complicated system without hindering the research in the field, we should give time for the scientist(s) to provide additional data to prove a scientific theory. Looking forward to reading more scientific discoveries from all of you
It is said in the Academia that you "PUBLISH or PERISH". Would the present case be an example of "PUBLISH and PERISH"? C.E.Gracias, PhD
Open review and open comment is the only way to ensure good science and good ethics in science. However, will 'top' journals really be willing to do that? Please take a look how some objective criticisms on the hot iPS cell publications have been suppressed by various 'top' journals. http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm
When I saw this news, "I would say that I have totally lost confidence in Nature and the Nobel prizewinner's L.B. Buck, and her collegues authored that paper.†A paper referred over a hundred time over 7 years was proved to have un-reproducable experimental data! In Nature! What a Joke! Moreover, as the co-author, and possibily the supervisor of this work, as a Nobel winner, Dr. Buck should take her resposibilty honestly but not push all fault to her collegues! How could a mature supervisor let a paper submit without checking the results! A nobel winner can never just earn credit but escape from responsbility. I suggest organizing an independent committee to re-check all papers published in Nature in recently 8 years by the invovled authors.
We need a revolution of scientific publishing in the mainstream journals-------- I am not surprised at all that more and more retractions or editorial expression of concerns will be published by Nature or Science or other hot new ‘journals’. But I am angry at the attitudes still held by the editors of these impact factor-wise ‘top’ ‘journals’ when they faced criticisms towards their own problems of repeatedly selling public some flawed or even outright fraud ‘products’.------- Make no mistake about this fact: Science, Nature and Cell are the number 1, 2 and 3 top retraction magazines/journals and the higher than usual citations earned by the retracted papers even boosted their impact factors! (http://im1.biz/CitationIF.htm). However, have these magazines/journals changed their error-prone publishing practices?-------- Please do not just blame the authors or, as often happened more frequently, just the junior authors who even did not earn any true credit for their hard work or fakery at the glory time of the paper. The seller of the flawed or fake products actually earns money for publishing others’ discoveries or fakeries. Thus, they should be held responsible for their failure, too. Otherwise, we will see repeatedly the flawed or fraud papers coming through the revolving doors of the top journals.--------- In the commercial world, while the manufactures of flawed products will loss their reputation, the stores selling these products are the actual losers because they have to issue some refunds to the customers and may not even recoup this financial loss if the manufactures go out of their business. Then how could sellers of flawed scientific products – the papers – even get some extra award – higher impact factors which are contributed with more citations from the retractions? ----- Thus, if the journals do not wish to share the scientific responsibility because they indeed cannot verify anything even with ‘tough’ peer review, they should at least take some financial responsibility for compensating readers their wasted money and time on reading and even following the misleading publications. How about paying back subscribers or purchasers of the retracted publication one dollar or pound per retraction? That measure may help to discipline some irresponsible trend-chasing, hot button-pushing ‘scientific’ ‘journals’.------------- Ultimately, a complete revolution in scientific publishing is much needed. Although mainstream journals have so far resisted this revolution, but the impact of this revolution which has already been taken place in some new-generation scientific journals (http://im1.biz) is unavoidable. A Declaration of Revolution has been published in both English (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/TFCP_Declaration_20070315.htm) and Chinese (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/XGZX2008V2N1A2_Revolution.htm). Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) even put out 10 principles and many detailed procedures for this revolution (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/P2007V2N1A2_Statement.htm). Let us work together to usher in a new era in scientific publishing! ----------- Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com)
Just type in PubMed Zou Z[au] AND Buck [au] and look on this shame. Science, Cell and PNAS all this big journals reproduced the act of bravery of the Nature reviewers. How Garry B. Wright said "people like Linda Bulk "....
Next great paper will be soon !!!! Genetic tracing reveals a stereotyped sensory map in the olfactory cortex. Zou Z, Horowitz LF, Montmayeur JP, Snapper S, Buck LB. PMID: 18322536 [PubMed - in process] Nature. 2008 Mar 6;452(7183):120. Nature rules!!!
Kudos to Nature for reporting this. Scientific fraud is happening all the time, and the only way to stop it is by making it public. My former advisor also engaged in fraud which I posted at plagiary.org
The inconsistancy is less worse than the unequally distribution of the "equally distribution" of the authorship, and publish an scientific research paper relunctantly to a high-impact paper. To my own perspective, I hope the whole scientific society should get rid of the urge for fame as for publish, so that we save so much time waiting and revising and arguing. I hope we are careful about a research project, and just publish without any delay in a journal correlates to the significance of this paper. The long process between first submission and final acceptance, which I know usually more than one year for journals like Cell, Nature, and Science, just doesn't make sense. Publish results is really for an honest scientific communication, but for a chasing for fame! Also I feel it is extremely ridiculous to give the co-first authorship to a person did no actually experiment. Is there any ethenity (Asian v.s. American) issue involved? Are all the people in her lab being provided with equally resources and attention from the mentor? This is really ugly especially for scientific community. Hope our scienfic community can be a pure and honest field!
The fast pace in publishing 'hot' research and slow pace in considering criticisms-------- --------------------------- It has been said that when something is hot it is extremely hot.-------- Now the hottest thing in the biological world is the magic iPS cells. Since middle of 2006, at least 18 research papers have been published in various 'top' journals. The fast speed in publishing this very trendy research is an acceptance speed of 13 days and publishing speed of 22 days for a report by Yamanaka's group in Cell (see more at http://im1.biz/FastTrack.htm).-------- In comparing with this fast speed in publishing 'hot' research papers, 'top' journals have so far refused publishing my 'cold' criticisms on iPS cells (see more at http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm). Believing it or not, even a Communication Arising that contains Yamanaka's formal response agreeing with my criticisms was asked to go through a lengthy peer review and then eventually being rejected by Nature.------------ Now I still have the following submission criticizing various misunderstandings and misrepresentations in various iPS cell publications under 'consideration' by the respective 'top' journals Such as: Nature Biotechnology (One submitted on December 7, 2007 and another on January 23, 2008) Science (one submitted on February 2, 2008 and another submitted on February 25, 2008) Nature (the still not-rejected one submitted on February 25, 2008) PNAS (a very short letter submitted on February 28, 2008) ------ Why it is so hard to accept some objective criticisms and let the public know as earlier as possible the uncertainly of some 'milestone' discoveries? Even Yamanaka has confessed in his latest publication in Science that 'the cell origins and molecular mechanisms of iPS cell induction remain elusive'. So should the very firm conclusions made in various earlier publications be retracted or at least corrected? Remember, it was also already concluded that 'Takahashi and Yamanaka have successfully reprogrammed terminally differentiated cells to a pluripotent state' (Cell 126: 652, 2006) and 'Yamanaka and colleagues have recently achieved remarkable success in deriving ES cells directly from adult fibroblasts' (Nature Biotechnol. 26: 64, 2008). The whole world is actually sold with the hypes on a new era of iPS cell-based stem cells and a high hope for ethical therapeutic cloning by headlines such as 'simple switch turns cell embryonic' (Nature 447:618-619, 2007). ----- Now one of Linda Buck's bad odor papers is retracted. What about the wordsmith-led 'discovery' of stem cells induced or reprogrammed from non-stem cells that have been described as the first biological airplanes and even hopeful for a Nobel Prize? ------------ Can we smell something really fishy here? ------------- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com)
Although unsuccessful, LH had been working on the project for quite long time before ZZ was asked to take over. Unluckily, the mice she generated didn't get germ-line transmission. ZZ started by re-doing gene targeting in ES cells and re-making gene-targeted mice. It was agreed from the beginning that LH and ZZ would be co-first authors. By ZZ
“Global Trend: More Science, More Fraudâ€- the title of the article published in The New York Times, December 20, 2005. It states, “The South Korean scandal that shook the world of science last week is just one sign of a global explosion in research that is outstripping the mechanisms meant to guard against error and fraud. Experts say the problem is only getting worse, as research projects, and the journals that publish the findings, soar.†It was more than 2-yr ago and now another case. We were told that “Science is often said to bar dishonesty and bad research with a triple safety net. The first is peer review, in which experts advise governments about what research to finance. The second is the referee system, which has journals ask reviewers to judge if manuscripts merit publication. The last is replication, whereby independent scientists see if the work holds up.†However, “Scientific misconduct is a global problem, yet protocols for addressing it remain highly fragmented and uneven. “ [Cell. Volume 131, Issue 1, 5 October 2007, Pages 9-11] If such misconduct involves the big fish, it usually only needs an apology. It is the small fish who actually did the bench work ended up in real shame. (check what happened in the cases involved in discovery of HIV or breast cancer gene related work in NIH). Not saying the person who fabricated data should not be punished, but comparing with the credit they get from publishing such work, it is out of scale to put ALL blame/responsibility on them. Also, if the person who performed the experiment reported the misconduct involved in senior scientists, they are still the one who suffer severe outcome. Quote from Science 1 September 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5791, pp. 1222 - 1226 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT: Truth and Consequences “ORI { federal Office of Research Integrity }officials estimate that between a third and half of nonclinical misconduct cases--those involving basic scientific research--are brought by postdoctoral fellows or graduate students like those in Goodwin's lab. And the ones who come forward, admits ORI's John Dahlberg, often suffer a "loss of time, loss of prestige, [and a] loss of credibility of your publications." †Though we may not get the whole picture yet in this case, learning from the past, there may be some possible outcome for such conduct, one, like this, “A University of Pittsburgh (UP) panel has declared stem cell researcher Gerald Schatten innocent of research misconduct in the South Korean stem cell debacle. But his failure to more closely oversee research with his name on it does make him guilty of "research misbehavior," according to a summary report released on 3 February.â€[ Science 17 February 2006: Vol. 311. no. 5763, p. 928]. Or, assure the public: “Randall Reed, a professor of molecular biology and genetics at Johns Hopkins University, said the Nature paper generated considerable interest when it was published, but it was not central to the body of work that won Dr. Buck the Nobel Prize. “I think it more leaves an open hole about something we thought that maybe we had a glimpse of.†[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/science/07retractw.html] How come, when the toy makers recalled the product, they never singled out the workers who made such products. Since the manufactures are the one who sold the product to the public they are the one who should take FULL responsibility. The “Author for correspondence†should get as much glory as s/he can get when the good data is published and the same "amount" of blame when the fabricated data is published, no matter where. Until they are held for equal amount of glory and responsibility in both situations, such "apology" or finger pointing will sadly never end. Quote, “Effective solutions depend on leadership, says Fischer. “An individual has to believe that that system has integrity. You have to have a culture where people feel the administration feels, breathes and walks integrity,†she says. “There's no magic solution,†agrees Michalowski. “But you need strong leaders,†he emphasizes. Likewise, vigilant, meaningful education must be built into the system. “You should have clear rules where people understand what's expected and required,†says Fischer. Furthermore, people must be familiar with the rules and trust them to work.†[Cell. Volume 131, Issue 1, 5 October 2007, Pages 9-11]
Thanks for Zou to speak out!!! However, my question for Zou is that did you use any of the mice made by LH in the study you reported to this 2001 Nature paper? If not, then not matter how much sweat LH had shed in the past unsuccessful efforts it will not justify her as a co-first author. Scientific authorship should reflect the true intellectual contribution to the discovery, not a showing of any 'friendship' to labmates or even courtship to authority. Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com)
Can the authorship be determined even before the discovery is made??? Zou's revelation may show an even big problem for Buck. How could she make a determination of the authorship and even the order and significance of the authorship for a paper that its content was not even known because a discovery has not yet be made?----- It looks like that Buck already knew the answer to the research questions and just need some technicians to get some data to fill the already formulated template. ----- Such events do happen and happen very often in some big labs!!!---- No wonder many inconsistence will be found only later because bad data as they are often called might not even reported to the boss. ---- What an unnatural selection for the dogma-fitting researchers or authority-courting scientists. Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz)
Not April 1st yet!!! Oleg P’s comment "Next great paper will be soon" really tricked me into a trip into PubMed. Sure I found another paper published by Zou et al in Nature.----- However, I was surprised to find out that this publication not only has the exact same title but also the same authors as the 2001 Nature paper. Was this a complete self-plagiarism or what?----- Until I opened the URL link, then I realized that it is an 'automatic' but consistently happened mistake by PubMed. Because this is actually a retraction notice for the 2001 publication.----- Congratulations to Zou et al! Your resumes can have one more publication! --- Congratulations to Nature, too! Your impact factor will be even higher because you just collected one more citation for your great publication.------- However, the April 1st has not come yet …… ------- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz)
In principle it is ok to say that senior researchers are dependent on junior colleagues to provide truthful data. I suspect what happens in practice might be a different matter in several cases. Senior authors, under various pressures or pursuits might choose to overlook, look the other way, or not carefully examine the raw data. Especially if it agrees with a favored hypothesis. If it sails, good. If it sinks, then all fault lies with the junior author anyway. This is deeply flawed. How can credit go one way and blame the other way? The public and scientists own trust in the scientific enterprise and peer review system are already low.
The PI and the science today-------- --------------------------- M.V.'s comment struck a cord – a deep flaw in current scientific enterprise which is essentially a paradise for exploiters. ----- PI should stand for principal INVESTIGATOR. However, how many PIs are actually doing the INVESTIGATION in the lab? How many PIs actually look at the PRIMARY data for the discovery?------ PI today often means Principal INVESTOR. Many PI's primary role is to get the money from public and then hire the talented people to do the actual research on ideas that he/she got from somewhere and in return gain all the credit if that work pans out. ----- There are many ways to get ideas. The most admirable and honest way is to generate ideas from his/her own research. However, when the PIs are even HAND-DRY and OFF-THE-BENCH, how could he/she get ideas in that way? ----- So many PIs today are very busy in attending meetings, participating in only the secret peer reviews, and engaging in networking. The bigger the lab the busier the 'BOSS' in doing this principal idea investigation or stealing job. A typical example of this PI's role and action can be found in the Nilsson-Science Gate in which PI got inside knowledge of two upcoming publications in Science and then directed his lab to start a research which was finished within a few weeks but resulted in an even earlier publication in Science. That publication,not the other two earlier accepted but actually later published papers, was seelcted as the ruunerup for the Breakthrough of the Year in Science. The PI was later selected for a major award in Sweden. However, when that paper was retracted, all the blames went to just one junior but true investigator (http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/53081/). ------ There are many more such examples and even more outrageous miscondcut (http://im1.biz/Named.htm). Many of these high-level misconduct cases have been revealed and studied in a new journal Scientific Ethics (http://im1.biz).---- I do not wish to say this but have to admit this: the scientific enterprise today is largely corrupted, from the top to the bottom!!! ------------- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com)
A silent spring ---------- I wish to make a quick observation on the responses to my comments posted on this news. I would say that I am truly amazed at how many responses that I got and I am really wondering why mass media have not yet picked up the topic of high level misconduct in science?--- It is said that the underlying frames will not be aligned if the top frames are misaligned. How could we expect to have an ethical scientific community when the top of the science is largely corrupted?--- I am tired of hearing the repeating stories of misconduct-led retractions and the sole blame on the junior investigator whose true contribution (good or bad) was 'sincerely appreciated' only at the downtime. ------------- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com)
It is unfair for ZZ to carry all the blames. The other first-author LFH is definitely responsible too. How can she be first-author while she just share the glory and shake off the shame? Instead of reviewing all papers lead by ZZ, we should review all papers by Linda Buck too.
How convenient it is for Linda Buck and co-first author L. F. Horowitz to claim that they actually did nothing substantial for the paper? How can they be co-first author and corresponding author without doing anything? If any scientific misconduct has occured in this case, all three of them should be banned from science and be despised by hard-working and honest scientists.
ZZ is one of the authors of the retraction. Does he agree with the contents of the retraction?
Yes, I signed the retraction letter and hope every scientist who is aware of problems with a paper will take similar actions immediately. However, I stand behind the conclusions of the paper and believe the experiments can be repeated. I am planning to do so. This will undoubtedly be daunting to a struggling junior faculty, and no one can guarantee success. I agree with the view that everyone who is on a publication should take full responsibility. Otherwise, stay in the acknowledgement.
How come the co-first auhor just offer reagent, Linda Buck should close her lab no matter what kind of award she got befor.
Close the Lab? Not so fast, the only thing we know so far is that some experiments can not be repeated AND there is due process. ---Quote from NEJM, 2003; Volume 349:1280-1286 -----Almost immediately, the Departmental Appeals Board's decisions in three prominent cases began to change the nature of investigations into misconduct.---- *Note, Case 1: Rameshwar Sharma was accused of making false statements in a grant application to the effect that his research was more advanced than it was; Case 2: Thereza Imanishi-Kari was accused by her postdoctoral fellow of falsifying research data; Case 3: misconduct investigation concerning Mikulas Popovic and Robert Gallo of NIH in HIV discovery.* ----These three cases underscored that, in the future, intent to mislead would be required for a finding of misconduct, the evidence of misconduct would have to be strong, and the burden of proof would rest squarely on the ORI's shoulders.---- The 1989 rules defined scientific misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community" and explicitly excluded "honest error."---- In December 2000, the Office of Science and Technology Policy finalized a comprehensive and uniform misconduct policy for federal agencies that retained the "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism" language and required proof of the researcher's intent to mislead.----In the case of Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court developed a balancing test for evaluating the constitutional necessity for additional due-process protections in a range of circumstances, from termination of welfare benefits to involuntary commitment of mentally ill persons.38 Although misconduct investigations do not pose constitutional issues,11 this test provides a useful framework for thinking about reasonable safeguards for such investigations. It asks the adjudicator to weigh three factors: the importance of the individual interest that is at stake, the risk of the person's being erroneously deprived of his or her interest under the status quo and the probable value of the procedural safeguard proposed to reduce that risk, and the government's interest.---
Despite of the concerns for the language used in the retraction, we have to admit that Linda Buck is sufficiently brave to retract their paper when questions were raised. There are a lot of highly profiled publications with serious errors but without acknowledgements from the authors (therefore midleading the research for many years). However, I feel that Correction (Corrigendum) may be more appropriate for this paper since the first author still stands by the conclusion. Furthermore, the research area was not misled by this publication. This will become clearer if the details of the retracted data from the paper can be released to the public domain (which figure was not reproducible etc).
This comment has been removed by the moderator
Can we see who the principal investigator is and who is the true corresponding author now? ------- So Linda Buck has found a problem: unable to repeat some of Zou's work. But does that mean Zou is wrong? --- Now Zou has expressed a firm believe in his (not Buck's) conclusion in that paper retracted by Buck (somehow signed by Zou, too). Zou is also the only true principal investigator who has publicly announced a determination to repeat his experiment. --- What does Corresponding author mean? Does it mean a right to take all the credits and then blame all other authors? Since Zou is the only author who has answered the calls from the public I will treat him as the true Corresponding author for this unfortunately prematurely retracted paper. --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1./biz) SVL@logibio.com
The deserved retractions not even allowed for criticisms!!!------------ There are many inconsistencies in the publications on iPS cells (see examples posted at Nature News (http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080116/full/451229a.html). Some conclusions made in the earlier publications are even outright lies. ----- However, has any 'top' journal retracted or even corrected the very clear misrepresentations? Why would all the 'top' journals so far rejected even some objective criticisms (see all rejected but nevertheless PUBLISHED criticisms at http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm). How could a criticism against a published iPS cell report take much long time to consider without offering a publication while new research reports on iPS cells without already identified appropriate controls being pushed out in some lightning fast speed? --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1./biz) SVL@logibio.com
Has the bubble fusion papers being retracted yet? ---- As far as I can still remember, the bubble fusion claim has never been independently confirmed despite millions of dollar spent on it by several labs. However, were the high-profile publications on bubble fusion retracted? -- We really need an international standard on retraction and authorship. --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1./biz) SVL@logibio.com
After reading Dr. Zhihua Zou's comments, it seems that he is not aware of the nature of his situation. He has been publicly accused of the highest crime for a scientist by his closet colleagues and he is now carrying all the burden of proof. To survive this crisis, he needs to convince the committee that his figures can be backed up by original records. What he believes is not relevant. All his statements will be critically examined. He will not enjoy the benefit of doubt any more. If he believes he did not do anything wrong, he made a big mistake by signing the retraction. He should work closely with his colleagues to address their concerns or even do the experiments again with them. There should only be one condition that a paper should be retracted from the literature, i.e., the results were made up. If he is innocent, I wish he will survive this crisis.
The retraction clearly states that the data was misrepresented and that he was responsible for that misrepresentation. I agree that ZZ does not appear to be aware of the nature of his situation - and my best advice is for him so say no more in these forums and to get himself the counsel of a good lawyer.
It is clear that a non biased science audit is required today. It is essential for the high impact factor journals to scrutiny the academic potential of the researcher who submits the manuscript for publication. If required an interview may be carried out to the researcher by the competent scientists who are working in the specific field honestly for years. Now days academicians are organising seminars/conferences/workshops by virtue of their contact with the funding agencies. In these seminars networking follows the research collaboration within not so competent researchers. Further it leads to all problems including publications. Prof.Saumitra Mukherjee dr.saumitramukherjee@usa.net
Zou is in great trouble and I absolutely agree with W Z that if he knows that he was right, he should not have signed the retraction. Linda buck has shown some courage in retracting the paper the results of which she now can not repeat. However, it is often easy to blame a junior author and it is quite difficult to imagine that the joint first author did not know anything about the data. Anyway, if Zou is confident enough, he should repeat the experiments and present the raw data to convince the scientific world. I hope that the scientific world allows him some time. At the same time I feel that journals like nature science or cell should not run after hypes that are hot and sexy with only far-fetched clinical applications, if any at all. Most of the papers published in these journals only satisfy some academic interests without any feasible role for betterment of mankind. Ananda Mookerjee, INSERM
This comment has been removed by the moderator
Let us watch a publicly held repetition--- Although the retraction actually did not say what is being retracted it is indicated by other citations over the years that the conclusion should be sound. Zou's remark after the retraction even believe the validity of the conclusion of the retracted paper./// So it may be more useful to ask Zou and whoever cannot repeat the results of Zou to do some repetition experiments under the watch of the public. Giving them the same materials and ask them to follow the exactly same research protocols as used before. I guess this simple repetition would not only yield quick answer than digging into the many years-old notebooks. More importantly, the answer would lead to clear judgment on whether the previous conclusion is valid or invalid./// Thus, let us give Zou and other(s) a fair chance to prove or disprove themselves. --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1) SVL@logibio.com
This comment has been removed by the moderator
Some thing smells REALLY REALLY bad here!!! ------ This is a RE-replacement for my March 25 comment "Some thing smells REALLY REALLY bad here!!! " which replaced my March 10 "Some thing smells bad here!!!" but both are hidden by the Nature News editors. This replacement has avoided completely the "F" word. ---- While data manipulation was hinted in the retraction notice but nevertheless is only a speculation, A GREAT DIFFERENCE IS VERY CLEAR IN DESCRIBING HOW AUTHORS MADE CONTRIBUTION THEN AND NOW. --- At the GLORY time of the publication, "These authors [referring to Zhihua Zou and Lisa F. Horowitz] contributed equally too this work". At the DOWN time it is only "Z.Z. prepared and analysed the mice and provided all figures and data for the paper" but "L.F.H. … prepared gene-targeting constructs to generate the mice".--- How could Nature allow this extreme alteration of a public record (a clearly printed author contribution) be made? Is it unusual or even unethical to publish such detailed author contribution so late and for what? --- Does this scientific world have any truth and justice??? --- Shi V. Liu (http://im1./biz) SVL@logibio.com
Objective investigation and fair judgment--- This is a replacement for my March 17 comment which is hidden by the Nature News now.--- Anada Mookerjee made a very good point that "it is often easy to blame a junior author". Unfortunately, this easiness of dislodging scientific responsibility by the corresponding author happens again./// <content removed but can be given upon request to the author>/// Thus, for a public-trustable investigation and public-acceptable judgment, I wish the investigation will be objective and the judgment be fair. Otherwise, just drop the whole case <content removed but can be given upon request to the author>--- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1) SVL@logibio.com
Comparing a pioneer’s research with research supported by the NIH Pioneer Award --- This is a replacement for my March 17 comment which is hidden by the Nature News now.--- ///// Intrinsic cell aging and detailed molecular mechanisms were already PUBLISHED years ago (see http://im1.biz/Aging.htm). However, these publications were totally ignored by the later publications reporting the similar or same discoveries (see http://im1.biz/Named.htm). ///// The new cell life theory specifically pointed the mortality nature of stem cell (see http://im1.biz/StemCell.htm) and a linkage between DNA aging and cell aging was PUBLISHED and presented in international meeting on aging. However, these discoveries were intentionally overlooked by some researchers receiving the NIH -Pioneer Award. ///// The above revelations are nothing but the TRUTH. If TRUTH cannot be communicated here, what else can we say??? ---- Shi V. Liu (http://im1.biz) SVL@logibio.com
How did someone who did not perform the experiments claim to have contributed equally to the study. This episode goes further than to show misdemeanour of a single author. It highlights nepotism within the lab. One or two favourite pets of the PI benefit to the detriment of all others. It is important that all authors listed on the paper be held equally culpable.
These comments are being unfairly directed I think. In a research effort by the team the two original authors led experiments. One assumes that in the judgement of those participating the earlier efforts, accurately reported, were the foundation for the later efforts, inaccurately reported. Both authors made principal contributions. At least that is how I would interpret it.
Some of the comments sound pretty phoney to me. Don't tell me you will "carefully check the raw data of everybody again and again" and be extremely sceptical towards your labmembers results when you have the chance to publish in a high impact journal. I won't buy that from you.