We’re continuing to try to find out more about the developing story surrounding Carsten Carlberg. Carlberg, as we have reported, was senior author on two papers retracted last year because one of the authors, a graduate student in Carlberg’s lab at the University of Eastern Finland (formerly Kuopio), fabricated data.
Carlberg holds a dual appointment with the University of Luxembourg, which recently announced the results of a months-long investigation into his behavior.
We have been relying on unofficial translations of a May 20th statement by university officials such as this one, by a generous Retraction Watch reader:
The investigating committee of international experts, appointed by the University, concluded in its report that the scientist cannot be accused of intentional manipulation of research results. However, as principal author of the publications, he bears the main responsibility for the retracted articles. In addition, he apparently did not supervise and lead his research team and doctoral candidates in Luxembourg in accordance to international standards. The committee also expressed doubts concerning other publications.
In its session of May 16th, 2011, the Board of Governance of the University of Luxembourg decided to initiate the dismissal procedure against the professor, as foreseen by the law. As President Rolf Tarrach emphasizes, this is an individual case: “It is our duty to protect the still young reputation of the University and of its scientists. Beyond the international standards, the University also conducts research according to an internal ethics policy and is forced to react rigorously when scientific standards are breached”, the President says.
But today we received an official version from Eric Tschirhart, who holds a position equivalent to vice president at the school. Tschirhart said Carlberg’s fate at the university is uncertain. The dismissal proceeding against him, the first the school has conducted in its eight-year life, won’t be concluded until early July.
Depending of the final position of board of governors, either he is fired, or he stays.
So how much of a chance does Carlberg have to hold onto his job? The document makes two main allegations about Carlberg’s behavior. The first is that “other publications” of his have come under suspicion; the second, that he mishandled his lab egregiously.
Where’s the evidence for these claims? Not in the statement. We asked Tschirhart for details — titles of articles, examples of mismanagement — but he demurred, saying the three-member external investigating committee hadn’t provided him a list.
Somewhat astonishingly, Tschirhart told us, “we have ourselves no evidence” of the tainted papers.
They were not published within the university … we will not investigate [them].
As for the second charge, Tschirhart said “the issue on this is very simple: Carlberg was more acting as a reviewer of figures, text, manuscripts” rather than a as an engaged lab head. He also said that all but two people (presumably including Carlberg himself) fled the lab in the wake of the retractions and as a direct result of the discredited papers. They were “uncomfortable with the situation and the way of working.”
We’ve asked Carlberg if he agrees with that characterization. But we’re having a hard time figuring out what, exactly, Carlberg is accused of not doing. Or, more precisely, we’re wondering where we’d find the standards to which he’s allegedly being held.
Tschirhart also told us that officials at the University of Luxembourg have no plans to consult with their counterparts in Finland regarding Carlberg, who splits his time equally between the two campuses. We find that a little puzzling, especially considering the fact that Tatjana Degenhardt, the graduate student whose fraud led to the retractions, worked in Finland, not Luxembourg, and had no connection to the latter institution.
Some Retraction Watch readers have claimed that there’s more to the Carlberg case is than it seems, while others have suggested it is fueled by obscure Luxembourgian academic politics. (We haven’t posted all of those comments, as some contain accusations we can’t verify.) We’re agnostic at the moment, and Tschirhart denied that politics has played a role in the inquiry.
What we do know is that the statement from the university regarding Carlberg’s activities contains allegations that may or may not be grounds for dismissal — but would certainly be sufficient cause for indignant resignation. Which, in the end, could be the objective.
In the meantime, the University of Luxembourg’s Life Sciences Research Unit have posted the following to their site in response to a letter signed by 16 Carlberg supporters (hat tip, benoitmajerus):
Communication of the Life Sciences Research Unit relative to the articles appeared in the Luxemburgish press “Tageblatt” and “l’Essentiel” on-line 19.5.2011.
The 16 colleagues who have declared their support for the professor in bioinformatics in a letter to the university are external people not affiliated to our research unit. We are committed to highest scientific standards in our daily work and would like to distance ourselves from the incorrect working practices described in connection with the recent affair concerning this professor.
We’ll continue to update as we hear more.
First just a question of interest:
“We haven’t posted all of those comments, as some contain accusations we can’t verify.”
How do you verify that accusations are true?
Concerning details of this case…From the details you can read in the local press, it seems that for example RTL.lu, has the commission’s report on the table. Thus, I do not understand why they still make such a secret out of the story.
Thanks for the question. When someone alleges that someone has committed a particular act, we try as best we can to verify that those acts took place. Sometimes that means speaking to the people involved, or finding other evidence. But some of the comments that have come through on this post, and others, would take significant work to verify. While we appreciate all comments and tips, we keep to high journalistic standards of verification before posting.
Here is the link to the article published by rtl, but written in luxembourgish: http://news.rtl.lu/commentaire/commentaire/108297.html
The way the journalist writes does indeed indicate that he is in the possession of the report written by three external experts. I wonder if Carlberg or the University of Luxembourg will make this report public.
Here a part of the very first article (listing quite detailed accusations against Carlberg):
“An hirem 8 Säite laange Rapport kritt de Professor bal alles reprochéiert, wat een engem Wëssenschaftler reprochéiere kann. Nëmmen e puer Beispiller: de Professer giff vill Detailer vun den Experimenter, déi a sengem Laboratoire gemaach ginn, net kennen oder net verstoen. De Professer giff keng Kontroll-Experimenter a keng Iwwerpréifung vun de Resultater ordonnéieren. Hien hätt virgefaasst Iddien a Virstellungen an e giff nëmmen déi Resultater wëlle gebrauchen, déi zu senge Prejugeeë passe giffen, aner Resultater giff hien ignoréieren. Beim Fonds national de la recherche wier eng Collaboratrice vum Professer opgefall wéint gefälschte Resultater an de Fong giff deem Professer keng Fuerschungs-gelder méi zoukomme loossen. A weider: de Professer giff ganz enk mat engem Laboratoire vun enger finnescher Uni cooperéieren; dem Professer seng Leit zu Lëtzebuerg hätten d’Gefill, datt hir Ressourcen, hir Resultater an hir Aarbecht a Finnland benotzt géinge ginn. Am Kloertext heescht dat: et kéint sinn, datt Lëtzebuerger Fuerschungsgeld a Finnland Friichten dréit a net hei am Land. De Professer giff also mat zwee Laboratoiren schaffen an d’Enquête-Commissioun mécht sech Suergen, wéi do d’Budgetë gehandelt ginn. Do ass de Reproche vun détournement de fonds net méi wäit ewech.”
Perhaps we may have a nice person around, able to translate to English? (here the link to the full article: http://news.rtl.lu/news/archiv/national/107705.html)
Here is a tentative translation from someone who knows Dutch, French and German but no Luxembourgish. Quite a few words from the text could not be found in several online dictionaries either. So please, caveat emptor, I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the translation.
“In their 8 page report they blame the professor for almost everything that a scientist could be blamed for. Let’s take a few examples: the professor did not know or understand many of the details of the experiments performed in his lab. The professor did not ask for control experiments or verified the results (produced in his lab). He has many ideas and opinions and he mostly uses the results that confirm his prejudices while ignoring those that do not. When the “Fonds national de la recherche” (national science funding agency) was told by one of his co-workers that she has learned that he had published falsified results, it decided not to further fund his research. Even more: the professor was collaborating very closely with a lab at a Finnish university; the professor’s co-workers in Luxembourg had the feeling that he was using their resources, their results and their work in Finland. In clear this means: it is possible that Luxembourgish research funds are being used in Finland instead of at home. The professor is managing two labs and the Committee was concerned about how he handles his budgets. So the possibility of improper use of funds is not so remote.”
Powerful stuff, if the journalist got it right.
Thanks for the translation!! Indeed powerful stuff!!
As far as I understand from this “D’Experte vu Barcelona, Berlin a Rotterdam waren dowéinst zweemol op der Uni a se hunn mat alle Concernéierten geschwat”, this report has been done by three independent researchers from Europe (not Luxembourg). But if this is true, why does now an internal commission still needs to decide about the fate of Carlberg? How can this commission be objective? How do they assure that the members of this commission are neither enemies nor friends of Carlberg? Would be interesting to know.
My understanding is that this is an internal committee that will examine the report and decide on the action that the University should take according to their bylaws. From everything that has transpired so far these are not likely to be friends of the accused.
In his second paper (http://news.rtl.lu/commentaire/commentaire/108297.html), the journalist hints also at irregularities implicating the EMBL in Heidelberg.
The translation seems correct to me.
It woould have been nice if that text was written in a language other than Luxembourgish!
With my knowledge of French and German I get that there have been a number of irregularities in his lab. There could also be an issue of budgets moving between Finland and Luxembourg but I don’t fully understand that part.
From Benoitmajerus’s link I noticed that Retraction Watch is getting mentioned:
“An zwar net duerch d’Yello press (sic), wéi de Carlberg eis am Internet nennt, mä duerch dee Carlberg selwer, deen elo op den Internetsäiten vu retractionwatch, déi jonk Uni an d’ Land duerch den Dreck zitt, (Zitat): do geschitt ni eppes, duerfir hunn d’Zeitungen elo reagéiert an et gëtt Politiker, déi de Succès vun der Uni sabotéiere wéilten. Kuerz: e mécht sech et einfach.”
I have no idea what this actually means…
Here is the translation:
Quote…
“Not through the Yellow press, as Carlberg called us on internet, but through Carlberg himself who, on the internet site “Retraction watch”, denigrate the young university and the country.
“Since not much happens in a small country as Luxembourg, the newspapers have spotted on the case. Apparently there is some local politics behind it, since the university reported yesterday its annual report (i.e. its success story), which some opponents of the university seem to have chosen to sabotage.”
In short: he makes it easier for him.”
Unquote
I will not attempt a translation this time, but the journalist is taking exception to statements that Carlberg made to Retraction Watch, specifically:
“Scientifically I am “cool” about the case, but unfortunately somebody gave the internal info to the yello[w] press, who does not understand the details of the case. Since not much happens in a small country as Luxembourg, the newspapers have spotted on the case. Apparently there is some local politics behind it, since the university reported yesterday its annual report (i.e. its success story), which some opponents of the university seem to have chosen to sabotage.”
His reaction is that these statements are tantamount to dragging the University and the country through the mud. I also believe that he did not like the reference to the “yellow press” that may have pointed at him.
The Luxembourgish weekly woxx.lu gives the names of the three experts who has written the external report: Thomas Sommer (Max Delbrück Center für Molekalurmedizin, Berlin), Frank Gosveld (Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam) and Pere Puigdomenech (Center for Research in Agricultural Genomics, Barcelona).
Didn’t find the article in woxx, but these are certainly well-respected scientists who cannot be suspected of harboring personal griefs regarding the accused.
The information available about the case so far consists of way too much innuendo and way too few facts. I certainly hope that the University will come up with a forthright statement explaining the facts and the reasons for its actions.
Probably benoitmajerus is referring to this article:
http://archiv.woxx.lu/1110-1119/1112/1112p4.pdf
It take it that it says that Eric Tschirhart, the administrative director of the University of Luxembourg, emphasizes that Carlberg will not necessarily lose his position. However, Rolf Tarrach, the head of the university, and the university’s Life Science Research Unit issued statements which sound quite different.
As noted by other Retraction Watch readers, a call for transparency is much needed in this case. If the university does not want to publish the three experts’ conclusion, why do they not issue a clearly worded statement? This strategy might hurt the university’s reputation even beyond the damage already done.
By the way, the now-retracted Cell paper was attributed to Luxembourg’s university in the press when it was published, ignoring the fact that the first author was “working” in Finland. I doubt that there is any other high-profile paper from the department attracting as much attention. The Life Science Research Unit seems to be the only part of the university which swiftly carried the appropriate reaction into execution. Of course, they are the ones who will suffer most from this tarnish…
http://www.dp.lu/political_actions.php?pa=2519&sat=0&lang=1
Anne Brasseur hakt nach
Im Rahmen der „Affäre Carlberg“ um den unter anderem seit 2006 an der Uni Luxemburg tätigen Bioinformatik- Professor, dem Verstöße gegen wissenschaftliche Standards in der Forschung vorgeworfen werden – eine Abberufungsprozedur läuft – will die DP-Abgeordnete Anne Brasseur nun mehr wissen. Mittels einer parlamentarischen Frage an den Forschungs- und Hochschulminister François Biltgen (CSV) versucht die liberale Deputierte zu ergründen, ob es stimme dass der Professor gleichzeitig Verträge mit den Laboratorien der Uni Luxemburg und der finnischen Universität Kuopio hatte und ob Carsten Carlberg von der finnischen Uni bezahlt wurde. Vor allem fordert Brasseur allerdings von Biltgen Aufklärung darüber, ob es stimme dass Carlberg Resultate aus dem Luxemburger Laboratorium dem Laboratorium in Finnland zugeschrieben habe – was ja bedeuten würde dass Mittel an der Uni Lëtzebuerg eingesetzt wurden, um Daten für ein anderes Laboratorium zu erfassen – und, falls ja, ob Forscher an der Uni Luxemburg durch dieses Vorgehen in irgendeiner Weise benachteiligt wurden. Ob es seriöse Zweifel an der Verwendung der finanziellen Mittel zwischen den beiden Laboratorien gebe, möchte Brasseur ferner wissen. Die Angelegenheit, die in wissenschaftlichen Kreisen seit mehreren Monaten für Aufregung sorgt – zwei wissenschaftliche Publikationen, dieCarlbergmitverantwortete mussten bereits zurück gezogen werden – dürfte auch durch eine Entlassung des Professors nicht ohne Weiteres beigelegt sein.
Not worth translating the whole thing, but for those of you not reading German here is the gist of it: Anne Brasseur, a Member of Parliament, has officially asked the Minister in charge of research and higher education to provide more facts in the case. Specifically, she has asked the following questions: Is it true that Carlberg was paid by both the University of Luxembourg and that of Kuopio? Did results obtained by his lab in Luxembourg get credited to the lab in Finland, thus effectively subsidizing the latter with Luxembourg money? Were his co-workers in Luxembourg negatively affected by these actions? Are there any serious questions about the management of funds attributed to the two labs? Finally, she states that dismissing Carlberg is not going to resolve these issues.
This particular story has been quiescent for a few days, and has left me thinking. Somehow the pieces do not seem to fit. Let me explain:
1. The facts
The story started in November 2010, with the retraction by Carsten Carlberg himself of two papers in Cell and JMB, both with his PhD student Tatjana Degenhardt as first author. It is not clear who spotted the problems with the papers, but Carlberg seems to have reacted rapidly and with due diligence, going over the papers and ferreting out the data and figures that were problematic, and then providing a full disclosure on his Web pages at the University of Kuopio and advising the relevant Journals that the papers should be retracted. Unfortunately the Web pages are no longer available, but long excerpts have been published by Retraction Watch. As far as anyone can tell all of the research affected by data manipulations was performed at the University of Kuopio, now of Eastern Finland, and none in Luxembourg. This was confirmed by the VP Research of the U. of Luxembourg.
The U. of Luxembourg and the National Science Fund (FNS), upon hearing about the retraction of the Finnish papers, then decided to launch investigations into the work of Carsten Carlberg. However, these investigations are NOT about what happened in Finland, but about what MAY have happened in Luxembourg. A panel of three respected international scientists was asked by the University to produce a report, which may have been shared with the FNS. The report has not been made public, but was obviously leaked to the local press. In a nutshell, it seems to have remonstrated Carlberg for having mismanaged his lab in Luxembourg, but to have stopped short of accusing him of either financial or scientific fraud.
However, both the University and the FNS decided on swift and harsh punishment. The FNS barred him from receiving any funding until it is satified that all doubts about his research have been resolved. The University initiated a dismissal procedure against him, which is likely to result in his formal firing.
2. Some speculations
I find it extremely puzzling that while all of the events leading to the retraction of the two papers happened in Kuopio, the University there does not seem to have taken any steps against Carlberg. There may have been an internal investigation, but at least for now the University has not made any statements about the “affair”, and Carlberg seems to still be a faculty member in good standing. If there had been any reasons to believe that he himself was guilty of more than poor supervision of his student, this should have been brought to light in Kuopio to begin with, as that was the institution that was directly affected. But so far, not a peep. Did they make any statements to Retraction Watch?
In Luxembourg however, where so far no evidence of serious wrongdoing has emerged, there has been a furore over the affair. Most of his lab has left him, he has lost his funding, he may soon be out of a job, he is being vilified in the press, his colleagues have distanced themselves from him, and there has been at least one parliamentary intervention questioning the oversight of the Government over the University. Reading again through the articles in the press and the information provided by the FNS and the University, I do not see any facts reproached to him that are much worse than what I see everyday amongst many of my academic colleagues, especially if they hold multiple appointments. They are not always on top of what their students and post-docs are doing, they hope that results from the lab will prove their pet theories, they are sloppy with their accounting and charge costs to the wrong grant, etc.
So what to make of this? My personal feeling is that for once the “tall poppy” effect discussed in the Penkowa affair may truly be at work here. Carlberg was more successful and internationally recognized than most of his colleagues in Luxembourg. He had an additional lab in Finland, and was often not in Luxembourg. He was a foreigner, not part of the local community. He may have been dismissive of his colleagues there (no evidence for this, just speculating). So the situation in Luxembourg may have acted as an amplifier to the problems he was having in Finland, and the authorities and his collegues seen an opportunity to “cut him to size”. So are we witnessing the dangers of being a big fish in a small pond? Or is it just that Luxembourg has higher ethical standards than Finland?
I think it is of importance to note that you will find very, very few people that still use the “tall poppy” effect in relation to Milena Penkowa. Too much direct evidence (including an actual criminal prosecution) of outright immoral behavior. I don’t (yet?) see anything in this case come even remotely close to what Penkowa did.
I fully agree that in that case the evidence of malfeasance is overwhelming. I only mentioned it because she had used the “tall poppy” effect as a defence.
Victor, I have some background information on the Carlberg case from inside sources.
A. I would not call his reaction rapid and diligent since he knew about serious concerns regarding several manuscripts at least since fall 2009. When did the “full disclosure” happen? Did he report in an honest way what the nature of the fabricated data was? He mentioned “qPCR data in long Excel tables”, but this was all about pictures of gels. The manipulations are quite easy to spot if you have a grasp of how these assays work. In fact, I suspect that neither the authors, the editors, nor the reviewers looked at the data thoroughly. Or they did not understand the technical details.
B. This is not the first time Carlberg has difficulties like this. Also, it may be very difficult for someone not familiar with the field of nuclear receptors to really understand the details of Carlberg’s studies. I encourage everybody who wants to have significant insight to read all the manuscripts, understand the techniques, talk to people from the field, and compare to manuscripts published by other groups. Only then you can have an objective view.
C. The University of Luxembourg’s reaction is fully warranted, I think. There were “other problems” in this “complex case”. Plus the now-retracted Cell paper was hyped in the Luxembourg press as a breakthrough by local scientists. It was not even mentioned that the “data” came from Finland.
D. The fact that other PIs don’t live up to their responsibilities as scientists, instructors, and receivers of taxpayer’s money does not justify this behaviour in the slightest. Maybe this is the beginning of PIs having to take full responsibility for their actions. In this case, external experts, of which I know to be an excellent scientist (not speaking about the others since I don’t know them), came to a rather grave verdict. I personally agree with them.
E. We do not know if there is any investigation is going on in Finland. There are some points to consider: The university is rather low-profile, a situation where no publicity could be better than bad publicity. I also heard that students have to publish in order to graduate in Finland. This also explains the great number of papers coming from Finnish groups. You might think what you want about rules like this; I guess it’s not as perverted as some institutions’ minimum number of impact points for graduation which often translates into more pressure, less science. A positive thing is that Tatjana Degenhardt’s PhD thesis, which was still available online without any comments about the retractions included, was finally taken offline some months ago. Let’s wait and see what more the University of Eastern Finland (the former University of Kuopio is now part of it) will do in this case.
Thanks for all the additional information, which does indeed look more damaging than what has been made public so far. I have no inside track on the case, but was just wondering if Carlberg was being targeted in Luxembourg because of tense relations with his colleagues rather than because of serious lapses in integrity. It may be best if the conclusions of the expert committee (which I fully agree was made up of individuals above reproach) are laid out in the open in support of the decisions taken by the University and the FNS. This would help clear the air.
Just wondering if Carsten ”was often not in Luxembourg” then where he has spent his time. At least not in Finland, since he has been there max 5 days per month during his teaching period from September to March.
some more details on the two cell papers: http://www.uef.fi/biotieteiden-laitos/carlberg/errata
It appears that the whole situation would be made considerable better by the release of the three critical reports – the external report commissioned by Luxembourg, any report by the FNS and the external letter of support from the ’16 scientists’. In that way the external community can assess what is real and what is a tall poppy effect
The problem with Tatjana Degenhardt’s manipulations was the use of same control. Now I have been looking at the Western blot analysis on another paper where Carlberg is involved (Gynther et al. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta – Molecular Cell Research, 1813(5):810-818). What do you think about, how well in Figure 1C does the Western blot control lane for beta-actin match with the shape of the VDR lanes? In my opinion, they do not seem to be from the same blot membrane.
Simon, you are completely right. Probably they are not from the same membrane. Or they were heavily photoshopped. Anyway, this seems to be completely common nowadays. Western blots can be easily manipulated, e.g. by waiting for some minutes for the luminescence substrates to be depleted in order to make loading control bands appear uniform in signal strength in late exposures. In addition to this, many papers show loading controls which obviously came from another membrane. This and the massive trend to cut all areas which do not show the desired band make assessing the quality of results and their interpretation almost impossible. To me, most blot images in publications are pretty much worthless. A textual description is about as informative. At least some journals (e.g., Nat Cell Biol) require authors to provide images of the entire x-ray films and put them into supplementary files.
See ” The Down-regulation of the Human MYC Gene by the Nuclear Hormone 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 is Associated with Cycling of Corepressors and Histone Deacetylases “ in Journal of Molecular Biology, Volume 400, Issue 3, 16 July 2010, Pages 284-,94 Fig. 2. At least to me the ” Representative gels are shown ” seems to be composed of single separate lanes or what do you think?
Certainly it doesn’t look nice at all. The reason could be that there always was an empty lane between adjacent samples to prevent spillover. Again, like in the case of strange-looking Western blots, it is impossible to assess the experiment’s quality without having access to the original data.
Nowadays, print editions of scientific journals are considerably less important than one or two decades ago. I take this as an opportunity to suggest that journals only publish images of the “whole thing”. If space is limited for whatever reason, the “whole thing” can be included as supplementary information. Edited images are worthless. Also, raw data should be accessible too if it is digital; this is already common for microarray and high-throughput sequencing data, for example. This measure would not rule out fraud and incorrect interpretation of data, but make those things less likely to happen.
This is an expansion of an earlier version that is firmly the category of “We haven’t posted all of those comments, as some contain accusations we can’t verify.” The goal is to provide more specific details.
A different earlier post pointed out an unusual retraction in which a major claim by the Carlberg lab, that melatonin is an agonist ligand for the nuclear receptor RZRbeta (better known as RORbeta, or NR1F2), was withdrawn by their collaborators (June 27, 1997 The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 272, 16707). Becker-Andre et al. stated that they were “not able to reproduce any of these experiments nor could we determine the reason for this failure.” The odd response from Carlberg did not refute these claims, and the obvious lack of current publications on melatonin responsiveness of this receptor certainly validates the concerns with the original results.
There is a less well known issue with an earlier claim from Carlberg that the thyroid hormone receptor heterodimerizes with the vitamin D receptor (PMID 8047145). This high profile Nature publication included transfection results that seemed well beyond what was feasible at the time (figs. 3 and 4), and the validity of the conclusions was very doubtful for some experts. This skepticism was validated by the fact that the primary conclusion was not supported by further results, and this story has also been on the dust heap for a long time. But it has not been forgotten by this reviewer of a new NIH grant by a young investigator starting his new lab, who was absolutely misled by the irreproducible (and fill in the blanks) results from Carlberg in his crucial first grant application, which was not funded. While he did manage to recover an independent research program, his very promising trajectory was compromised by following the lead of an investigator who has, as we now know, published multiple conclusions that are dubious at best. The negative impact of scientific fraud is personal, and not just abstract.
Carsten Carlberg has been dismissed from the University of Luxembourg.
http://wwwen.uni.lu/university/news/press_releases/15_juillet_2011_suite_au_rapport_d_une_commission_d_enquete_internationale_l_universite_se_separe_d_un_bioinformaticien
Epilogue….
http://www.wort.lu/wort/web/en/luxembourg/articles/2011/07/155884/index.php
(JB) A senior academic at the university of Luxembourg has been fired and his career may be in tatters following a misconduct scandal.
Biochemist Carsten Carlberg was accused earlier this year of deception by co-writing and approving two articles containing invalid scientific results.
The articles, which were written with post-doc grad student Tatjana Degenhardt, in Finland, have since been retracted.
However, as senior author of the documents, earlier this year the university launched an investigation.
Mr Carlberg took on the post of professor at the University of Luxembourg in 2006 where he led a team in the field of biochemistry.
The university today released a press release confirming his dismissal, saying that rector Rolf Tarrach took the decision out of a desire to protect the reputation of the young institution’s science faculties.
http://wwwfr.uni.lu/layout/set/print/universite/actualites/communiques_de_presse
15 juillet 2011– Suite au rapport d’une commission d’enquête internationale: L’Université se sépare d’un bioinformaticien
Lors de sa séance du 9 juillet 2011, le Conseil de Gouvernance de l’Université du Luxembourg a décidé de révoquer Monsieur Carsten Carlberg de sa fonction de professeur et de résilier son contrat de travail.
Le chercheur avait dû retirer des publications scientifiques réalisées sous sa direction. Suite à cela, l’Université avait mandaté, fin 2010, une commission d’enquête composée d’experts internationaux et avait entamé les démarches prévues par la loi en mai 2011.
Carsten Carlberg enseigne et mène des recherches à l’Université du Luxembourg depuis 2006. Comme le souligne le recteur Rolf Tarrach, il s’agit pour l’Université de protéger la réputation scientifique encore jeune de l’institution.