Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 1 April 2009 | Nature 458, 561 (2009) | doi:10.1038/458561b
News
Retracted paper rattles Korean science
Authors disagree over work aimed at gene therapy for diabetes.
Nature this week is retracting a 2000 paper that promised an advance in diabetes treatment using gene therapy. Confusion surrounding the paper, including allegations about fraudulent data, continues to afflict the South Korean science community.
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 webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
There was a case very similar to this but ended quite differently. Three years ago an inner fighting among co-authors led to exposure of potential research misconduct to mass media. As reported in Science (311:937, 2006; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5763/937), "A bioengineering triumph at Sichuan University in Chengdu, China, has been dismissed as a "scientific fabrication" by six of the 18 authors who worked on it. But the project chief at Sichuan has hit back: Last week, Qiu Xiao-Qing sued two of his co-authors-cum-critics, charging that they have injured his and his employer's reputations." As the Editor-in-Chief of Scientific Ethics (http://im1.biz) I was fully informed about some "facts" in this case because the "plaintiffs" sent me some hard-core evidences in supporting their claims. However, to be responsible and be fair to the "defendants" ? the two corresponding authors of the disputed paper (published in November 2003 issue of Nature Biotechnology), I asked these two corresponding authors each to give me a response. However, only one of them (the "added-on" corresponding author who was actually based in US) did that. The other "main" corresponding author (who led the research in China) had never responded me even though I sent him more "official" notices reminding him of his intrinsic corresponding duty to scientific inquiry. In the end, the paper which contains un-reproducible results remains in its "good" standing despite the fact six co-authors had requested retraction or withdrawing of their authorship. More ironically, those two scientists (from a government insititute and thus have no competiting commercial interest) who couldn't repeat the claim made in the Nature Biotechnology paper was even found "guilty" of defamation (see stories at http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670100aqim.html ).But their only "crime" was signing on a letter submitted to Nature Biotechnology asking to withdraw their names from the authorship because there were unable to confirm the findings reported there. So, my question is: why similar cases could end up so differently? Is there a universal moral and ethical standard in science? Shi V. Liu
The last line by Shi Liu: "...universal moral and ethical scandard in science?..." Isn't it is lost long ago? what remains is careerism, making the publication, Impact factor, grants, and exploitation, fake results, mediocricy at the top of the science agenda?
I think that when a paper is too contrary to conventional knowledge, much more data should be included. We all know that appropriate insulin secretion do not rely only on regulatory gene sequences.
The last phrase by Nitin Gandhi: "mediocricy [mediocracy?]at the top of the science agenda". How could this happen? Why can only some mediocres now occupy the top positions in science or publish in top journals? Where are the pioneers? Where do they publish now? Shi V. Liu
The first line by Daniel Corcos: "a paper is too contrary to conventional knowledge, much more data should be included". Was the claim made in the 2000 Nature paper really "contrary to conventional knowledge" when the gene therapy is not only a hot research but also the "ultimate medicine" for the mainstream? I would say claims conform to mainstream ideas need more evidence, not by duplicating images or reuse the same data, though. Shi V. Liu
The comment from a Nature spokesperson: "that underlying problems with a paper, if they exist, can be difficult to detect through standard peer review". Really? Even "the apparent duplication of figures" and "the reuse of data as well as cutting, pasting and otherwise adjusting figures" are "difficult to detect through standard peer review"? Then how about to open all Nature publications to public open review and comment? Hwang's stem cell milestone was appreciated by reviews from experts by shattered by comment from bloggers. If a normal channel is provided by all journals to expose defects in their publications, then flawed and fraud discoveries might be uncovered much earlier and thus avoid misleading science from inflicting more damage to society. Shi V. Liu
Nature's policy: "it will permit retraction of a paper without the sign-on of all authors, while making clear which authors disagree with the retraction." Does this policy apply to the Nature's "baby" journals such as Nature Biotechnology in which Qiu's paper was requested to be retracted by six co-authors but is still there? Shi V. Liu
In November 2008 I submitted to Science a Technical Comment criticizing some mistakes made in Yamanaka's second iPSC paper published in Science. However, my submission was rejected by Science, with a notice that a correction will be published if appropriate. Now four months have been passed, I did not see any correction coming out, nor I have received any reply to my repeated inquiries for answers to the "identical image problem" identified in my Technical Comment which was published later (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N4A3_iPS_Deadend.htm or http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2008V8N4A3_iPS_Deadend.pdf ). The published criticism was sent to Yamanaka directly and an invitation for rebuttal was sent officially from the journal. However, so far, no response has been received from Yamanaka, despite repeated urges. The "identical image problem" (see details at http://www.stemcell8.cn/viewthread.php?tid=2120&extra=page%3D1 or http://im1.biz/000/Science20081107_iPS_PCR_band.pdf ) was not answered by Yamanaka despite a direct notification to him and some public displays. So what can we do about this? Shi V. Liu