Stanley Rapoport, a neuroscientist in the National Institute on Aging, isn’t having a lot of luck with his first authors. One committed misconduct and cost him a paper in the journal Age last year, and now he’s lost another paper with a different first author, but for the exact same reason.
The latest paper, in Neurochemical Research, examined whether chronic doses of aspirin reduce brain inflammation. It has been cited 14 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.
Here’s more from the note:
This article has been retracted on request of the Editor-in-Chief. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has found that Dr. Mireille Basselin engaged in research misconduct by fabricating and/or falsifying data in “Basselin M, Ramadan E, Chen M, Rapoport SI, Anti-inflammatory effects of chronic aspirin on brain arachidonic acid metabolites. Neurochemical Research 36 (1) 139–145, 2011.” Figure 2a–e was falsified. Please note none of the other authors are implicated in any way. Each of the co-authors of the manuscript has agreed to this retraction.
Some of the wording even feels similar to the signed note from Rapoport that was included in the Age retraction:
The NIH found that Dr. Fei Gao engaged in research misconduct by fabricating and/or falsifying data in Figures 1-7 and Table 2 in “Aging decreases rate of docosahexaenoic acid synthesis secretion from circulating unesterified α-linolenic acid by rat liver. Gao F, Taha AY, Ma K, Chang L, Kiesewetter D, Rapoport SI. Age (Dordr). 2012 Mar 3,” and therefore I request a full retraction of this paper. Please note, none of the other authors were implicated in any way.
Stanley I. Rapoport
In 2012, Basselin and Rapoport issued a correction to a paper about neuroinflammation in the brains of rats with HIV, following errors in the molecular weights listed in three figures. The two authors appear to have published a number of other papers together.
John Dahlberg, deputy director at NIH’s Office of Research Integrity, couldn’t comment on this case specifically, but explained how investigations work at ORI:
In general…institutions often will request retractions/corrections of articles which their committees have found to warrant such actions prior to ORI completing its review, assuming that ORI would have jurisdiction in any particular case.
We’ve reached out to Rapoport, as well as the journal’s editor in chief, Arne Schousboe at the University of Copenhagen.
The NIH email provided for Basselin on previous publications bounced. Co-author Ramadan declined to comment.
Hat tip: Rolf Degen
Like Retraction Watch? Consider supporting our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, and sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post.