About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

MD Anderson investigating researcher Bharat Aggarwal over images

with 451 comments

Bharat Aggarwal, an influential MD Anderson researcher who has been accused in the blogosphere of manipulating images in a slew of published studies, acknowledged to Retraction Watch that the Houston institution is investigating the matter. Reached by Retraction Watch by phone at his office, Aggarwal said MD Anderson

has been looking into it and I think that they will tell everybody what it is all about. I think that somebody out there is putting this whole thing together and their mind is made up.

However, Aggarwal, chief of the center’s cytokine research section, denied that any retractions of his papers were forthcoming. He refused to comment on whether officials had confiscated his computer, as a commenter to this blog has claimed.

Allegations of misconduct by Aggarwal have surfaced recently on at least two blogs. One, devoted to the subject, lists 14 papers. Abnormal Science also been on the trail and has posted images for evaluation.

Aggarwal’s papers are highly cited. One, published in Science when he was still at Genentech in 1985, has been cited more than 1,700 times. according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. Another, about the potential anti-cancer effects of curcumin, has been cited 700 times.

He has also published on resveratrol, the component in red wine that some researchers claim has anti-aging and other healthy properties. One of his papers on the subject has been cited 370 times. He also edited a book on the topic that included a contribution from Dipak Das, the UConn researcher found to have committed 145 counts of scientific misconduct.

Aggarwal’s bio is worth a look:

Dr. Aggarwal has published more than 600 papers in peer-reviewed international journals (including Science, Nature, Cancer Cell, PNAS, Journal of Exp. Medicine, JBC, Cancer Research, Journal of Immunology), invited reviews and book chapters. He has been listed as one of the most highly cited scientist by ISI since 2001; and has been included in ISI Highly Cited among most highly cited authors in Immunology category. He has also been listed as top 25 researchers in apoptosis area in the World. His papers exhibit high-citation index (over 1000 for some).

Dr. Aggarwal is inventor/coinventor on over 33 patents.

Dr. Aggarwal has received numerous awards including World Congress Science Prize from Oxygen Club of California 2010, Excellance in Research Award of McCormick Research Institute from the American Association of Nutrition, 2008, Outstanding Scientist Award from the American Association of Indian Scientists in Cancer Research, 2006, Ranbaxy Award for Outstanding Scientist of the year, 2004.

Needless to say, we’ll be following this case closely.

Please see our follow-up posts. Also, while we appreciate the free flow of ideas, we have had to unapprove several very abusive comments. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, as they undermine this community’s attempts to improve our understanding of the scientific process.

About these ads

Written by amarcus41

January 31, 2012 at 4:55 pm

451 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. At present 8 out of these 65 papers are genuine and they do not have any evidence of data manipulation. There is enough primary raw data to prove these points.

    addit1

    March 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    • @addit1, Kudos . Send the PRIMARY raw data and your analysis report to ORI to stop the investigation against BBA. Good luck.

      Mimi

      March 5, 2012 at 10:17 pm

      • @Mimi, lol you got such a great sense of humor….hahahahahahhahaa…..LMFAO….very true…he should send all his analysis to ORI and Dr Ronald Depinho (who is now so angry with BBA) that given first legally safe opportunity he would immediately fire BBA from MD Anderson….

        vigilante

        March 5, 2012 at 10:24 pm

  2. 53 bloggers have commented in this blog. Out of these 27 are confirmed indians and 17 have direct or indirect link to BBA. I can provide details if some one wants. Two bloggers are related to each other and support each other no matter what the context is.

    addit1

    March 5, 2012 at 3:00 pm

  3. One small update: 32 bloggers are Indians on this site. 21 related to BBA (directly or indirectly). One blogger has used three different names. One blogger has used 2 different names. Two bloggers are husband wife. Details can be provided on request.

    addit1

    March 5, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    • I am curious. I counted 9 real names – including mine. I would love to get more information on how you are making this assertion.

      Jayesh Mehta

      March 5, 2012 at 7:50 pm

    • Addit1 you seem to be excluding yourself from your stats. Didn’t you earlier use ADI as username and now back as addit1?
      Didn’t you see how confident TR was about not being discovered but the real scientists over here got to it? Do you think people can’t get your real identity and the skeletons that you are trying to cover if they want to?

      WB

      March 8, 2012 at 8:40 am

  4. @addit1: job well done. Not sure how your statistics will benefit the issue discussed here. Nationality doesn’t matter in discussing the topics. Look at all the blogs being discussed on retraction watch. I don’t think people are very much concerned. What is the importance of those associations with the person involved? What is the motivation for this? your analysis of 8 out of 65 papers are genuine..is also a bit strange. Is it possible to elaborate your analysis and its interpretation?

    Ressci Integrity

    March 5, 2012 at 7:48 pm

  5. Here’s his second retraction (ironically from the journal BBA)…
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22265847#
    This was paper #3 on Jigen’s blog

    Virgilstar

    March 6, 2012 at 8:50 am

    • wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww…..what a big news…..man…..

      I really do not have words to thank enough Ivan/Marcus for bringing this whole issue forward….

      it just proves that we all here are right..well we all knew BBA has been involved in mass scale wrong doing but it is now just being proved …one by one……amazing….

      let us see how many more nails are still there for the coffin of BBA’s scientific career…

      disillusioned

      March 6, 2012 at 12:00 pm

  6. Ivan/Marcus: these retractions should be listed on retraction watch as usual I guess…second retraction from this scientist…

    Ressci Integrity

    March 6, 2012 at 9:23 am

  7. I wonder what happens to patents that have been issued if the underlying research is proven to be “flawed” and the papers are retracted. BBA certainly has plenty of both!

    Jayesh Mehta

    March 6, 2012 at 9:45 am

  8. @Jayesh Mehta: Good question. I don’t know what will happen to the patents. I am also worried about the field which built upon such research initiatives. Imagine, many people followed this work and published papers on such and such drug affects NFkB or something like that. There will be 100s of them. Papers which supported these observations and papers which cited these articles – what is the fate? Any one has any thoughts on this?

    Ressci Integrity

    March 6, 2012 at 10:01 am

    • People who followed his work should be mediocre. So let them pay for it.

      Lincoln

      March 6, 2012 at 11:07 am

  9. One more thing: why not some-one find out who were the reviewers of all his 65 papers?
    Generally if the reviewer is concern genuinely -he/she gives the proper attention to minute details-some of the image needs only one glance- to understand the flaws.

    Lincoln

    March 6, 2012 at 11:24 am

    • @Lincoln: it is hard to find out. In many of the journals they have published papers, the person is in the editorial board. Of course that does not matter much. Unless the journal has the policy to disclose reviewer names ) we will be able to find out. Some biomedcentral journal do this as well frontiers series has started interactive reviewing. Otherwise, just backscratching each other…

      Ressci Integrity

      March 6, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    • Hahahahahahahahaha! What a joke.

      I just called them up and asked about this. Spoke with the person who purchased the award and is involved in its administration. They (the American Botanical Council) are FULLY AWARE of the allegations, and “knowing him personally, Jim Duke [for whom the award is named] and the other members of the panel did not believe it [the allegations], and chose to make the award anyway”. She went to great lengths to explain the innocent-until-proven-guilty principle in this country (I have an accent, so maybe she tought I was from overseas), and stated there have been no concrete findings. I then told her about the 2 retractions already, and she seemed surprised, so I directed her here for further reading. I honestly think these people have no grasp whatsoever about the gravity of this situation and how stupid this makes them look (well, more stupid than they looked before this, at least).

      r3sanon

      March 7, 2012 at 10:18 am

      • hi r3sanon, could you please tell me their telephone number…I also want to call them and tell about how big fraud BBA is and will protest this award….

        and I think all of us here should call the organizer of this award function and ask them to put this award on hold until BBA proves himself not guilty…..

        vigilante

        March 7, 2012 at 11:23 am

    • FYI, the award will be presented at Nutracon 2012 (http://www.nutraconference.com/) tomorrow, March 8th, so presumably he’ll be there to collect in person. Anyone in Anaheim CA fancy reporting on this? (or heckling).

      r3sanon

      March 7, 2012 at 10:27 am

  10. Is there any policy to retract awards?

    Mimi

    March 6, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    • Mimi: good point actually….but I would be little soft on this issue as this is not an award for his science, it is award for his book…and book may not necessarily based on research work …..it could well be fiction….which is fine….lol…..should not bother us…real scientists who like things to be proved in the laboratory…

      also, a good suggestion to TR, BBA and rest of the people on that league of pseudo-scientists- may be it is good for them to seek their alternative career in science fiction writing than being involved in peer review based research publications….apart from all the controversies about their faking the data etc…one thing is evident for sure – that these guys have really great minds in generating fictions….related to curcumin and whatever other herbal plants they worked on…wow….they should not waste their time in laboratory research…fictional book writing is best thing they can do without being questioned on the integrity of their content….hahahahahahahahha

      vigilante

      March 7, 2012 at 12:20 am

  11. Fellows Number of publication with BA Number of duplication current position
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————
    Reuter S 22 ?? ??

    Gupta C 23 ?? ??
    Prasad S 32 ?? ??
    Kannapan R 22 ?? ??
    Sung B 88
    Sethi g 58 NUS

    Nair AS 6 ?? ??

    Kunnumakkara AB 42 ?? ??

    Mann AP 1 ( may be he stayed only one week in his lab)

    Pandey MK 27 ?? ??

    Shishodia S 51 ?? ??

    Harikumar KB 18 ?? ??

    Anad P 15 ?? ??

    Follower

    March 7, 2012 at 10:53 am

    • hmm……. interesting, however half of the papers by these authors are reviews. This lab publishes lot of multi author reviews also.

      Michael Warner

      March 7, 2012 at 12:54 pm

      • Michael you are right that all the papers by these authors may not have problems but I guess the question will arise about reviews too. What can we say about reviews based on papers that turn out to be falsified? The ramifications will be far beyond BBA’s work.

        WB

        March 8, 2012 at 8:30 am

    • @ Follower: Where are these folks? Are they living in US or gone back to their bases. Are they sincerely exercising whatever they had learnt in their new positions? If yes, how to quarantine their activities before many innocent youngsters are baptized.

      Secondly, it appears that the list is incomplete. My apprehesion is that the scientific misconduct, fradulent manipulation of data and deliberate falcification started well before these folks visited BBA. I am surprised to see SK Manna, currently Head Immunology at an Institute in India failed to make to the list, inspite of dozens and dozens of JBC, JI papers and documeted data manipulation. To me Dr. Manna should lead the list.

      Sup

      March 7, 2012 at 2:18 pm

      • @Sup: You are back on this forum. Don’t worry my friend. I understand your anguish. Many of us who did not want to work his style went through the same kind of humiliation and had to quit the lab sooner or later because we did not have those things in our hands (heart) that can generate quick publications for him. But you know we are not losser either and we are proud of what we did after quitting that great lab. Infact if MD Anderson cancer center look at their database, they will find that the number of post-docs who left his lab within days and months of joining is at least 20 times higher compared to those who stayed longer and became super-productive. This new crop of post-docs is too ambitious to do research. Being a Hindu I hope you believe in “Karma” and you know that the people who have done this “mass fraud” will have to pay back someday in this life only. God bless you.

        SS

        March 7, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    • These are the total papers of these people with BBA. Not all the papers have problems.

      Michael Warner

      March 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    • Y. Takada missing in the list: 42 papers.

      SS

      March 8, 2012 at 10:08 am

  12. Hey…any one know where they are now?

    GR

    March 7, 2012 at 1:52 pm

  13. just discovered that another guy Harikumar is also here in actually a very good researcher Sarah Speigel lab. I know her personally, she is wonderful scientist, she may have taken this guy because of his background in inflammation but I am praying to God that this guy is not doing the same tricks that he did in the lab of BBA, cause he may spoil the reputation of Dr. Spiegel as well….

    http://www.linkedin.com/in/harikumarkb

    http://www.biochemistry.vcu.edu/directory/faculty/spiegel.html

    vigilante

    March 7, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    • but using your own logic.. how can he spoil the reputation of Spiegel when the PI is responsible for everything ???

      scienceobserver

      March 22, 2012 at 5:48 am

  14. http://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/profiles/profile/person/97889

    this guy Ramaswamy Kannappan, Ph.D. is at Harvard….dreaming for a faculty position…

    vigilante

    March 7, 2012 at 6:09 pm

  15. wow….see this guy:

    http://bio.tsu.edu/faculty/shishodia.html

    he is spoiling and corrupting Indian science by setting himself as a teacher in a prominent Indian university Banaras Hindu University..

    Only God can save those students who are being taught and trained by him….

    vigilante

    March 7, 2012 at 6:12 pm

  16. sorry I did not read it right earlier..Shishodia is working right here at Texas Southern University….

    vigilante

    March 7, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    • I do not think any of Shishodia’s papers has a problem.

      addit1

      March 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm

      • Really? Jigen’s blog would suggest otherwise! Shishodia’s name is all over the dodgy papers. I’d put him right up there with Prasad, Yadav, Sung, Sethi, Manna, and the others who have waaaaay too many papers than is feasible.

        FYI, on the topic of where Aggarwal’s minions have gone to, Vivek Yadav is now a post-doc in Oklahoma. AFAIK, Sung and Prasad were still working in Aggarwal’s lab as recently as January.

        r3sanon

        March 7, 2012 at 11:16 pm

      • addit1: wait man….I am going to report some irregularities in Shishodia’s papers too that I have found out already….tell Shishir shishodia that he is going to get a letter soon from ORI…

        vigilante

        March 7, 2012 at 11:17 pm

      • Dr. Shishodia inherited Dr. Manna legacy.

        SS

        March 8, 2012 at 10:07 am

      • Shishodia has manna’s legacy.

        P Jackson

        May 18, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    • Shisodia is still doing good. Is it not our duty to look at all shisodias who are involved in wrong science. So why only sishodia why not Dr. Sethi or Dr. Sahu (the great nanotechnologist?) Why pinpointed targeting?

      P Jackson

      May 13, 2012 at 1:40 pm

  17. 8 possible reason for people to blog about BBA
    1. Failure in his lab
    2. Inability to work in his work set up
    3. Lack of good job after leaving BBA lab
    4. Rivalry with other colleagues from BBA lab
    5. Genuine concern about science and research ethics
    6. Habbitual blogging (blah blah blah)
    7. Frustration in personal life / carrier
    8. Concern about another blogger.

    addit1

    March 7, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    • You forgot another important category -
      9. Associates of BBA who benefited from this research and are now scared of truth coming out

      WB

      March 8, 2012 at 8:03 am

      • Why should not be them? It is criminal offence. Misuse of public money means only option is to go to jail.

        P Jackson

        April 15, 2012 at 7:40 am

  18. I have done a background check on Indian bloggers hre. For majority of them reason is 1-4, but for three of them the reason is 7-8.
    There is not a single blogger here with successful scientific career and peaceful personal life.

    addit1

    March 7, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    • addit1: you are biggest dumb on the earth…I have checked myself and found that 70 percent of these bloggers have at least 1 RO1 grant in US…

      and your background check tells that you are still a postdoc…struggling for papers….

      vigilante

      March 7, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    • Hello addit1,
      You r totally wrong. Some of us are in such powerful positions, once you know our identity you wouldn’t dare to write in this blog. We see your successful scientific career and very very peaceful personal life that you attained at the cost of intigerity.

      Mimi

      March 7, 2012 at 11:33 pm

      • Mimi I know everything about you. If you want I can tell you everything (from your date and place of birth till present day employment).
        What do you mean by powerful position?

        addit1

        March 8, 2012 at 8:25 pm

      • How about something about you Addit1? From india, living in houston not with BBA but a co-author with him on 8 papers … right or is it just a coincidence that BBA has a co-author on 8 papers with same initials as yours?

        WB

        March 8, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    • According to my analysis you probably belong to category 9 mentioned above.
      A common feature of category 9 people is that they have nothing to do with 5 but everything to do with 8
      Is it because without a ‘carrier’ there is going to be no ‘career’ for people like you?

      WB

      March 8, 2012 at 8:07 am

  19. Top 3 of BBA followers:
    1) SUNG Bokyung, 88 papers co-authored: http://www2.mdanderson.org/app/peoplefinder/person.cfm?id=3D5ADAD7C81D
    2) SETHI Gautam, 58 papers co-authored: http://www.med.nus.edu.sg/medphc/staff/academic/GSethi.htm
    3) SHISHODIA S, 51 papers co-authored: http://bio.tsu.edu/faculty/shishodia.html

    The no. 2-3 had moved on to faculty positions. I am surprised that Sung B (no. 1) stays in MD Anderson as instructor! :-)

    Public

    March 8, 2012 at 12:18 am

    • Can somebody analyse huge number of papers, Dr S K sahoo who is Chairman of nanotechnology lab in India has published in a very brief period of time?

      P Jackson

      April 15, 2012 at 6:20 am

      • Biomaterials 31 (2010) 9340-9356 No doublet done, FL1 and FL2 voltage altered.Fig 7: No sub G1 peak as allthe figures have been edited and pasted. The Authors have examined BrdU incorporation using linear scale on X axis. It has to be on log scale.Fig.8: Moreover the Authors have mentioned use of RNAse whereas DNAse should have been used to expose incorporated BrdU. Fig.10: FL1 and FL2 voltages have not been properly set to detect double negative cells. Moreover FL2 voltage has been decresed to show double positive cells as Annexine positive only.

        Biomaterials 31 (2010) 6597-6611 Ungated data and altered FL1 voltage. Fig 9: The Authors have photoedited this data as suggested by their FL1 vs counts histogram (FL1 vs FL2).Clearly in native curcumin FL1 voltage has been altered as with nanoparticulate curcumin.

        Acta Biomaterialia 6 (2010) 3120-3131 Ungated cells false positive binding of Annexin FL1 has been altered.Look at fig 7.FL1 voltage has been altered as the double negatives have been moved on X axis.

        European Journal of Pharmacology 670 (2011) 372-383: Fig9: The authors have for the first time reported about analysing 10,000 gated cells. Earlier they were not doing this.

        Acta Biomaterialia 7(2011) 3656-3669: Fig6a: Ungated cells showing false positive staining for Annexin V. Non specific binding (ungated cells), FL1/FL2 voltages altered.

        Nanomedicine: nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 7 (2011) 859-870 Fig.5 FL1 and FL2 voltages clearly altered in shown samples to show apoptosis. Ungated cells have been used which shows false positive staining for Annexin V.

        More papers from the above school are being analysed.

        P Jackson

        April 23, 2012 at 10:30 am

  20. BBA holds patents on curcumin (Treatment of human multiple myeloma by curcumin Aggarwal, B. B. as inventor; granted on March 27th, 2007 (US 7,196,105 B2); Curcumin, analogues of curcumin and novel uses thereof. Aggarwal, B.B. as inventor(s). International Publication No. WO95/18606, date 7/13/95. and a couple of other related ones).
    He is also listed as Advisory Board and Founding member, Curry Pharmaceutical, Advisory Board and Founding member, Vantari Pharmaceutical, Advisory Board and Founding member, Charak International; Scientific Advisor and Founder (company website lists him as one of the board directors and curcumin capsules available for $15).
    I would think that these would constitute conflict of interest but none of his publications on curcumin report it.
    To list a few
    1. Phase II Trial of Curcumin in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer (Clin Cancer Res July 15, 2008 14;) conflict of interest state – V. Badmaev is employed by Sabinsa.
    What about BBA?

    2. Curcumin circumvents chemoresistance in vitro and potentiates the effect of thalidomide and bortezomib against human multiple myeloma in nude mice model Mol Cancer Ther April 2009 8; 959 – Disclosure – Curcumin is commonly available from numerous health food stores and various companies, including Indogen which was set up by spouse of one of the authors (B.B. Aggarwal). No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
    Why no mention of the patent held by BBA or his role in other companies involved in marketing of curcumin?

    3. Cyclodextrin-complexed curcumin exhibits anti-inflammatory and antiproliferative activities superior to those of curcumin through higher cellular uptake Biochem Pharmacol. 2010 October 1; 80(7): 1021–1032. – mentions Dr. Jaakko Parkkinen as an inventor in a patent application on the cyclodextrin curcumin and a share holder in a company that owns the rights for the patent application but ignores the associations of corresponding author.

    4. Curcumin Selectively Induces Apoptosis in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma Cell Lines and Patients’ PBMCs: Potential Role for STAT-3 and NF-κB Signaling Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2010) 130, 2110–2119 The authors state no conflict of interest.

    5. Curcumin Modulates the Radiosensitivity of Colorectal Cancer Cells by Suppressing Constitutive and Inducible NF-κB Activity Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 October 1; 75(2): 534–542.Conflict of interest: No conflicts of interest

    This is from someone who was a member of the conflict of interest committee (2007-09). Were these in accordance with the MDACC policies or is MDACC looking into these too?

    WB

    March 8, 2012 at 8:23 am

  21. @addit1, looks like you are trained not only in scientific theft but also in identity theft. BTW, a position is powerful when it is gives dignity, respect and honor in life

    Mimi

    March 8, 2012 at 11:09 pm

    • TR= addit? Or TR+addit=BBA?

      Follower

      March 9, 2012 at 10:18 am

  22. While we appreciate the free flow of ideas, we have had to unapprove several very abusive comments in the past few days. Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, as they undermine this community’s attempts to improve our understanding of the scientific process.

    ivanoransky

    March 9, 2012 at 11:12 am

  23. Thanks Ivan reinforcing this. We have seen this in other blogs. We have had so much uncovered on this issue and I am sure ORI or other bodies who are investigating this issue should take note of these points which might be associated with the case. We hope for the best and truth will come out one day.

    Ressci Integrity

    March 9, 2012 at 6:17 pm

  24. Dear All,

    Now after carefully looking at all the data in question produced in BBA’ lab, I agree with you guys that there has been serious violation of research ethics and I also feel that there is something fishy with BBA and his associates who have published all these papers without much substance in it. As a sincere scientist, I too would appreciate if ORI can look into these points raised above and come to a conclusion on one of the most debated scientific misconduct in United States in recent history….

    addit1

    March 10, 2012 at 12:00 am

  25. It’s all about money-just imagine how low he was been doing it (>10years)
    His salary last year was >200k (Salaries are public at a state institute like MD Anderson)
    For that salary I would believe that the sky is red.

    qwerty12

    March 10, 2012 at 3:25 pm

  26. I am surprised that Cancer Res. 2010 Nov 1;70(21):8695-705 did not make it to the list or may be the list is not updated as yet. It has the same problem of ‘universal loading control’ (see figures 3c-d & 6c-d).

    Fig 3 c-d have the same loading control but Bcl-2 is not from the same gel/ blot as some of the others as a band can be seen on the left in Bcl-2 blot but not in others with similar or more spacing!

    Fig 6c the Bcl-xL blot seems to be missing the lane background on increasing the contrast in the last lane as compared to lanes 1-3. A bubble or something more?
    6d MMP-9 does not appear to have come from the same gel as others as a portion of adjacent band can be seen on to the left in MMP-9 blot but not in others (entire fig 6 blots) even with similar spacing or more.

    6a signal present in the well of first 3 lanes but missing from the last lane. Was equivalent sample actually loaded? Why is it not required to have a control for EMSA? Though with the way loading is being done for the westerns I do not know how meaningful will any control be for people who just want publications.

    These were some of the very obvious … may be something more is still amiss in the paper

    WB

    March 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    • I agree with you…these figures are also compromised in their integrity….waiting for this paper too to make to the list of retracted papers….

      vigilante

      March 27, 2012 at 11:09 am

  27. Does anybody know whats happening in the case of Bharat Aggarwal? Is his lab closed or is he still continuing his dubious work on turmeric powder?

    addit1

    April 11, 2012 at 10:30 am

  28. Yes, Jackson..let the noble people decide on this. In the mean time, these scientists can freely give keynote address, plenary lectures and invited talks at international conferences – sometimes they do talk about scientific misconduct….

    Ressci Integrity

    April 14, 2012 at 12:09 am

    • World is alive because of some good people. Scientific misconduct is nothiing but criminal offence. Let the lab of Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Sunil Manna, Dr. Sethi and Dr. Sishodia be sealed first. Truth will eventually come out. We have hard evidence of fabricated data. This will be a great message to the whole scientific world. Regarding Dr. Manna if his appointment as the Head in a Govt Institute in India is based on the publications in MDA then Govt. of India can cancel his appointment. Regarding Gandhi’s comment that BBA will have the last laugh. Well after retraction of paper he should hide his face for rest of his life.

      P Jackson

      April 15, 2012 at 4:44 am

    • Dear Daff67 Yes why they should not have? Everybody is trained how to change the voltage and very confident on using ungated cells.

      P Jackson

      May 18, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    • @Daff67 you have surfaced all of a sudden. Do you address the questions which I have raised or simply in a protecktive mode?

      P Jackson

      May 24, 2012 at 12:43 pm

  29. Look at the number of fabricated data with Journal name etc I provided above. I invite all the experts in the concerned field to comment on them.

    P Jackson

    April 23, 2012 at 11:38 am

    • I urge all the retraction watchers to post their comment on why these papers should not be retracted immediately!

      P Jackson

      April 23, 2012 at 12:28 pm

      • @P Jackson: I will look through those papers …can you just post at least one or two irregularities in those papers?

        Ressci Integrity

        April 23, 2012 at 6:34 pm

      • I request a group to come forward and analyse the data and if there is manipulation pl expose these. This will be another lesson to unethical scientists. Any request for input from my side is always welkome.

        P Jackson

        May 5, 2012 at 11:50 am

      • I am really sad that energetik people are are not komming to scrutinise the unethikal science.

        P Jackson

        May 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm

  30. Thanks Ressci. Here are some.
    Biomaterials 31 (2010) 9340-9356 No doublet done, FL1 and FL2 voltage altered.Fig 7: No sub G1 peak as allthe figures have been edited and pasted. The Authors have examined BrdU incorporation using linear scale on X axis. It has to be on log scale.Fig.8: Moreover the Authors have mentioned use of RNAse whereas DNAse should have been used to expose incorporated BrdU. Fig.10: FL1 and FL2 voltages have not been properly set to detect double negative cells. Moreover FL2 voltage has been decresed to show double positive cells as Annexine positive only.

    Biomaterials 31 (2010) 6597-6611 Ungated data and altered FL1 voltage. Fig 9: The Authors have photoedited this data as suggested by their FL1 vs counts histogram (FL1 vs FL2).Clearly in native curcumin FL1 voltage has been altered as with nanoparticulate curcumin.

    Acta Biomaterialia 6 (2010) 3120-3131 Ungated cells false positive binding of Annexin FL1 has been altered.Look at fig 7.FL1 voltage has been altered as the double negatives have been moved on X axis.

    European Journal of Pharmacology 670 (2011) 372-383: Fig9: The authors have for the first time reported about analysing 10,000 gated cells. Earlier they were not doing this.

    Acta Biomaterialia 7(2011) 3656-3669: Fig6a: Ungated cells showing false positive staining for Annexin V. Non specific binding (ungated cells), FL1/FL2 voltages altered.

    Nanomedicine: nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine 7 (2011) 859-870 Fig.5 FL1 and FL2 voltages clearly altered in shown samples to show apoptosis. Ungated cells have been used which shows false positive staining for Annexin V.

    More papers from the above school are being analysed.

    P Jackson

    April 23, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    • P Jackson – I am not clear as to how you have made the conclusions about alterations in voltage settings etc on the basis on the data presented in the figures. IMO this appears to be a chemistry group who would have collaborated with some one having knowledge about FC or used some core facility for charge unless you were the person doing those alterations under the promise of authorship or such and when that didn’t materialize you want to expose them?

      Biomaterials 2010 – Fig 7- How do you know “no doublet done”? How can you say figures have been edited to remove subG1 DNA containing cells? The left edge of the histograms does not show a sharp straight line indicative of such manipulation and neither is the G1 peak touching the Y axis. If these people were smart enough for that then I would expect them to also similarly remove cells with >4N DNA. BrdU is on the Y-axis and not X-axis and yes the norm is to acquire those in log scale but use of DNAse for exposing incorporated BrdU? They have clearly mentioned the denaturing step in their methods which is required for exposing the incorporated BrdU and then counter staining has been done with RNAse-PI. If DNAse is used to digest the DNA then what will PI stain?
      Fig10 – Yes they could have increased the FL2 voltage to bring up the population but the gating would depend upon their negative control so the the gates (quadrant) too would have moved up and so the same population would still be only annexin positive. The position of their gating quadrant is the same across treatment groups and with it they have shown the presence of all 4 different populations.

      If this is the kind of analysis you have done on the rest of the papers too then I don’t think its worth anything.

      WB

      April 26, 2012 at 3:41 pm

      • Lok at the analysis done afterwards. Anybody who has acquired expertise in flow cytometry will understand the clear message. Afterwards the authors have indirectly admitted the irresgularities in their interpretations as after a while they have started to consider gated population. Dear WB the original files can never tell lies. believe me or not there are alternations of data. But wait a while. Truth shall be revealed with more and more evidences. Watch it!!!

        P Jackson

        April 28, 2012 at 1:42 pm

  31. I am not sure whether the retraction watchers are keenly analysing my observations. The most important reason as to why I got involved with this blog is to expose many so called great achievers in science.
    Unfortunately I see very limited interactions to my comments. Anyway, it is my duty to convey the scientific world where the fault lies. if the experts in the said field can review these inputs I have to believe that we are definitely performing the jobs of retraction watchers. Tells me honestly if we admit that we have taken ungated population of cells as control is it not equivalent to do a western blotting without house keeping genes as control. I strongly believe that the entire paper which is primarily focussed on apoptosis and ungated cells are the control is absolutely rejectable by scientific community. If the supervisor is still learning let him learn. But not at the cost of peer reviewed publications. I urge the sci communities to look at each paper and extend their opinion about the interpretation of the data. secondly you go on increasing the voltage and and decreasing it you shall see what ever you want. The early apoptotic cells can be necrotic the necrotic cells can be apoptotic. Can somebody expert in the field of apoptosis come forward and challenge me on my remark that fc analysis based on the data of ungated cells should be equated with trash. Wait for more analysis on several papers from different Indian Institutes.

    P Jackson

    May 2, 2012 at 11:46 am

  32. Look at BA. Many of his papers are under scrutiny because the kontrols are same. What is the difference in the papers from nanotech skool if the controls are not relevant! So why you targeting BA but not everybody who has chosen his path!

    P Jackson

    May 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    • Yes, it is frustrating. experts in the field will not investigate these things. We can do this but you see we have other responsibilities as well. I do this for science when I have time. I know it will be too late as these people keep giving lectures as key note speakers in many conferences world-wide though their papers are under investigation. They keep publishing and getting funded by their university. No university will investigate any of their employees unless formal complaint is made……..

      Ressci Integrity

      May 2, 2012 at 10:21 pm

      • Thanks ResSci. Pl lok at the beautiful representative Flow cytometrik analysis of apoptosis in Mujoo K et al Cancer Res 2001, 61,5486. When cells moving into apoptosis how the duble negative cell population is decreasing. Double negative cell population pattern remains almost same. Luk at the data in figure10 (BIOMATERIALS 31 (2010) 9340). Will you not admit the double negative pattern shows distinct difference. Do you know why? By changing the voltage the cells are either compressed or expanded that to mind it they are ungated cells. This is unethical science. We are not targeting person. We are targeting unethical science. So I do not believe one person one time. What about others? Why should not we also think about time factor. Thousands of good scientists are there. If one group is engaged in one job let the second group be engaged in the second job.

        P Jackson

        May 3, 2012 at 10:22 am

      • Is BBA having the last laugh as per Gandhi!

        P Jackson

        May 7, 2012 at 3:02 pm

      • Dear Ressci When you shall have the time to lok at all the manipulations done which was identified in many of my postings?

        P Jackson

        May 13, 2012 at 1:43 pm

      • Nobody tried to analyse what I am saying in this blog. But there is a great news that a guy known as Dr Gopal Kundy, Chairman of the nanoteknonology lab in DBT and most probably BBA are kreating a center of excellence for Nanoscience in India. Each one of them is famous for their prololifik publikations. I now agree BBA will have his last laugh.

        P Jackson

        May 18, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    • In reply to P Jackson May 2, 2012 at 12:44 pm.

      “targeting BA but not everybody”

      One case at a time.

      BErnard Soares

      May 3, 2012 at 4:49 am

      • We are not targeting person. We are targeting unethical science. So I do not believe one person one time. What about others? Why should not we also think about time factor. Thousands of good scientists are there. If one group is engaged in one job let the second group be engaged in the second job.

        P Jackson

        May 3, 2012 at 10:54 am

      • Kome on and give a reply. I believe we all are fighting for Science.

        P Jackson

        May 5, 2012 at 3:05 pm

  33. Nobody tried to analyse what I am saying in this blog. But now there is a great news that a guy known as Dr Gopal Kundy, Chairman of the nanoteknonology lab in DBT and most probably BBA are kreating a center of excellence for Nanoscience in India. Each one of them is famous for their prololifik publikations. I now agree, that BBA will have his last laugh. Some unknown great blessings on the above group of great scientists! They run the business as ususal and we are just wasting our time for nothing!

    P Jackson

    May 18, 2012 at 2:09 pm

  34. check this out, nothing stops him from publishing.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22178471

    Mimi

    May 19, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    • @Mimi What ca we do do stop these unethikal scientists? Do you mean that the world belongs to BBA, Gopal Kundi and Dr S Sahu

      P Jackson

      May 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm

      • P.Jackson: i wish i had time to help you. Please follow the recent retraction watch blog on a Korean professor whose articles are retracted in Antioxidant Redox Signalling journal. You may want to compile your observations on those individuals and try sending them to the journals. i am really sorry – I am totally busy with some more important stuff. I will catch up with you later.

        Ressci Integrity

        May 21, 2012 at 11:08 am

    • Wonderful. Nobody can stop them. Probably we should not waste our valuable time.

      P Jackson

      May 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    • @mimi and @vigilante @ Ressci
      Can you please visit nanotechmanipulation blog and leave your comment?

      nanotechmanipulation

      June 13, 2012 at 2:44 pm

  35. None of this surprises me. MD Anderson is a giant garbage hole of corp waste and inefficiency. The culture is beyond toxic and is a cancer preventing any real breakthroughs. Their top down management approach, lack of communication, and a sense of accountability ensures ethics issues. Take it from someone on this inside, this place is a massive waste of public funds.

    sultros

    June 19, 2012 at 9:37 am

  36. There has been a constant competition to be ahead in scientific community with one’s own data as triumph card..however this has lead to rise in various types of manipulations and new way of fabrication to present the data through research articles. This link gives the glimpse of some papers that come under scanner for such disgraceful works…http://samjson.wordpress.com

    Biomanipulation

    July 29, 2012 at 10:52 am

    • Awesome stuff.great mockery of science.

      scienceguy

      July 29, 2012 at 2:15 pm

      • @ Scienceguy: Its truly a mockery of science but the group is still enjoying the scientific stardom with such fake datas. We need to stop this by letting the reputed scientists investigate these manipulated datas.

        Biomanipulation

        July 29, 2012 at 10:18 pm

  37. Time is very important in researcher life. This blog has started to give valuable directions for those who are sopling their times in various ways.

    scientificsprit

    August 6, 2012 at 10:32 am

  38. P.Jackson: this is what going to happen, I guess….what is going on other former postdocs of BA?

    Ressci Integrity

    September 23, 2012 at 6:31 pm

  39. P.Jackson: this is what going to happen, I guess…

    what is going on other former postdocs of BA?

    Ressci Integrity

    September 23, 2012 at 6:31 pm

  40. Please let the reputed scientists investigate these.

    P Jackson

    April 12, 2012 at 1:01 pm

  41. please check all this nanotechnolgy school’s flow cytometry data. Each student has different annexin-v and dna fragmentation data.

    Daff67

    May 6, 2012 at 11:07 am

  42. Another one 4 review
    http://i46.tinypic.com/vqirnd.jpg

    nanotechmanipulation

    June 13, 2012 at 11:30 am

  43. Another one for review
    http://i46.tinypic.com/vqirnd.jpg

    nanotechmanipulation

    June 13, 2012 at 11:32 am

  44. THANKS

    P Jackson

    June 7, 2012 at 7:50 pm

  45. Luk at nantechmanipulation blog

    P Jackson

    June 8, 2012 at 12:41 pm

  46. look at the model FC figures
    http://i50.tinypic.com/30kak9u.jpg
    FACS data is stored as FCS files and remain in the computer as long as they are not deleted. If they have been deleted there is a smelling rat. So they SHOULD be retrevible by the first author by files name, data of acquisition, time etc which should all be recorded in the student’s notebook. Nobody CAN alter FCS files anytime unless it is deleted. That being said, flow experts can analyse somebody’s else’s FCS files for them when they describe the paramters that they analysed. For e.g. FL1 for annexin and FL3 for PI or FL1 for CD4 and FL3 for CD8. But there are a lot of visible signs if FCS data is manipulated and can be easily found out by experts in the field. For eg the BD Annexin ppt that is posted as a model shows double negative cells constant for all conditions which is done on one voltage setting. If the double negative moves down then some X or Y parameter has been altered for sure. Auto fluorescence, uncompensated data, altered data, manipulated data etc. by flow can be very easily detected by voltage settings and by analysing data.

    nanotechmanipulation

    June 18, 2012 at 10:29 am

  47. More laser review
    http://i46.tinypic.com/2ly3if7.jpg
    http://i49.tinypic.com/ip5zle.jpg
    For review by great scientists

    nanotechmanipulation

    June 12, 2012 at 9:17 pm

  48. Pl see the post on Nanotechnology School.

    nanotechmanipulation

    June 27, 2012 at 10:43 am

  49. See new post

    nanotechmanipulation

    June 29, 2012 at 11:38 am

  50. Great findings…..Have gone through the blog..very impressive….Nanotechmanipulation & biomanipulation-are these papers not reviewed before being published..

    scienceguy

    July 30, 2012 at 2:10 pm

  51. That is the reason for which we have started these blogs. Fabrication of wrong data to show right kunclusions is taking the govt. funds for granted and cheating the society that heavily depends on it for its upliftment. We shud stop such things and spare no such scientist who does the mockery of science. The same images were copied and pasted with PS work in two different figures in same research paper and different papers for different expression parameters. Wat lead them to do so?

    Biomanipulation

    July 30, 2012 at 10:05 pm

  52. That is the reason for which we have started these blogs. Fabrication of wrong data to show right kunclusions is taking the govt. funds for granted and cheating the society that heavily depends on it for its upliftment. We shud stop such things and spare no such scientist. The same images were copied and pasted with PS work in two different figures in same research paper and different papers for different expression parameters. Wat lead them to do so?

    Biomanipulation

    July 30, 2012 at 10:07 pm

  53. dr g v rao

    September 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm

  54. As said by me earlier, no action was taken and SKM continues to be an employee of CDFD and is happily drawing salary with all perks from the tax payers money…..it is now suspected that many more such scientists must be involved in such plagiarism in their own fields and by removing SKM, he might spill the beans..Incidentally I wrote to Dr Vijay Raghavan, Secretary of Dept of Biotech, Govt of India and superboss of SKM…

    ============================================================================
    The text of my complaint was :

    “I regret to observe that even after several weeks ever since the plagiarism of scientific data by Dr S K Manna, Scientist of CDFD Hyderabad, has been in International and national press, no action has been taken against the said Dr Manna. In case your good self has missed this information, please browse through this link;

    http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Seven-Retractions-for-Indian-Immunologist/biotechniques-341840.html?service=print#.UXFUeLXRjTo

    Dr Manna and CDFD have brought shame to this Country by being the only Scientist and Scientific organisation, respectively, in the World which has plagiarized the largest number of scientific papers. Please enlighten me in case any other Scientist has retracted 7 papers on charges of plagiarism.

    Scientists like me who brought fame and honor to CDFD were framed………………………… , because I refused to be part of the rampant corruption prevalent at CDFD.

    Today, it is an open secret that DNA testing reports from CDFD are suspect and in one case was also thrown out of Court which is contrary to the scene when I headed the DNA testing lab at CDFD. The day is not far off when some top serving and ex-officials of CDFD and DBT would be arrested and jailed for several acts of omission and commission. The example of Dr N K Ganguly is a glaring example.

    Today the status at DBT is so appalling that sham scientists like Dr Manna are suspended for a week (as an eyewash) and then reinstated to continue to be paid salaries from public exchequer. The whole world is looking at DBT in surprise as to why such scientists are not acted upon within DBT. Had the same incident occurred at a CSIR lab, more transparent action would have been seen and such scientist would have been out.

    I want simple and transparent answers as to ;

    Why Dr Manna continues to be with CDFD.
    Why no action has been taken for his misconduct.
    What has happened to the funds granted to him on such projects, results of which he has plagiarized.
    Whether a separate and independent auditing of accounts of projects sanctioned to him was ordered or not.

    Or is it true that more such plagiarized work by Director CDFD and other scientists are being concealed at CDFD and that removing Dr Manna would make him to open his mouth bringing more shame to DBT and CDFD in particular and India in general.

    Look forward to a reply for taking this forward to a more meaningful and logical conclusion”.
    ===========================================================================
    To this above complaint, Dr Vijay Raghavan gave this reply which sounds so unimpressive but reveals that no action has been taken for such heinous crime….

    The reply was:

    “Dear Dr. RAO
    Thank you for your mail. This matter will receive all the attention that is rightly needed.
    Regards
    Vijay”
    ==========================================================================

    So let us wait and see what he does……

    dr g v rao

    April 19, 2013 at 11:56 pm


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 33,666 other followers

%d bloggers like this: