Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Leiden requests two retractions over misconduct

with 5 comments

logo-lumc-engThe Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) has asked a journal to retract two papers after revealing a former employee manipulated data.

The report does not name the individual nor the journal, but notes that they work in a molecular field, and are currently employed by a university outside The Netherlands.

According to a news release about the report:

The scientist manipulated data sets in these two publications, thereby creating false results. The scientist left the LUMC some time ago, but currently works at a foreign university. The LUMC has informed this university.

The manipulation came to light after a PhD student reported the matter. The publications related to very specific molecular research and were not patient-related. This means that patient safety was never compromised.

We spoke with Pancras Hogendoorn, member of the Board of Directors and dean of the LUMC, who told us he was advised by the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity (LOWI) not to release the name of the researcher nor the journal that was notified about the misconduct, and wouldn’t say where they are now based.

Personally, I don’t think it’s relevant to know the identity of the person. It’s not about naming and shaming.

However, Hogendoorn added that he suspected that people might be able to discern the scientist’s identity once the retractions appear:

I think the report is clear and rather well looked after, so I suspect [the journal] will retract in the coming days.

Hogendoorn noted that the scientist left the LUMC a few years ago, and was only there for a couple of years.

According to the report, the head of a department reported suspicions of misconduct in 2011, after a PhD student and technician came to him with concerns. An ad hoc committee investigated, and reported in 2013 that they had “found evidence of irregularities in two publications.” Apparently the accused admitted to manipulating data in one figure, but then retracted that statement. In the end, there wasn’t enough proof to pursue it, LUMC decided:

…the final conclusion, as reported by the Board to the defendant, was that there was no definitive proof of a breach of scientific integrity by the defendant, given the complexity of the research and the lack of evidence pinpointing who was responsible for the other irregularities. The ad hoc committee also considered it relevant that the senior co-authors of the publications expressed their continued belief in their scientific validity.

In 2014, the former PhD student filed an appeal with LOWI, presenting additional evidence of the misconduct. LOWI ruled that LUMC should launch a “more extensive investigation than by the ad hoc committee.”

The Committee investigated films of experiments, lab journals, and the hard drive of the accused’s personal computer, and interviewed colleagues. In 2015, it held a series of hearings.

In conclusion, it found multiple irregularities in figures of a 2006 paper, listing “duplications,” “possible duplications,” and “reuse” of part of an image. When presented with the findings, a senior co-author concluded the paper contained “serious and unacceptable manipulations.” And:

At least in one instance, a Supplementary Figure had been constructed by cutting and pasting of other results and it does not represent results of experiments that were performed.

During the hearing, the accused admitted to many manipulations, saying that they were either mistakes or “done on purpose to make a figure look better.” The scientist:

…maintained that in all instances the figures corresponded to the scientific truth, i.e. the results of other experiments.

The report makes a definitive ruling:

Given the large number of instances in which figures were manipulated, which took place in several publications over a period of several years, and which have grievously misled readers, the Committee concludes that this constitutes a serious breach of scientific integrity. The Committee concludes that several publications need to be retracted.

The Committee added that the manipulations were “most numerous” in the papers that originated from Leiden. In two other publications that originated from the UK, the manipulations are “less numerous;” still, the Committee recommended that the UK institutes primarily responsible take some action. For a fifth paper, the Committee suggested the responsible institution submit a correction.

This is the second public finding of misconduct out of the LUMC in the last few years. Hogendoorn told us:

The bad news is that it was two cases, and the good news is that you learn from every case…you don’t want to have this experience, but you learn from the experience.

He told us the university has been continuing to educate graduate and undergraduate students about proper conduct in the lab, and establishing electronic lab notebooks. As a pathology researcher who runs his own lab, Hogendoorn said that the two experiences with misconduct have reminded him of the importance of checking raw data whenever possible.

You’re confronted with the importance of doing that in these circumstances again.

This isn’t the first time an institution didn’t launch a full investigation after the first accusation of misconduct — for instance, Ohio State University only sanctioned a pharmacy professor after prompting from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity. And in regards to now-infamous researchers Anil Potti and Paolo Macchiarini, Duke University and Karolinska Institute, respectively, both initially dismissed accusations of misconduct.

Hat tip: Vincent Bontrop

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our new daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here.

Written by Alison McCook

June 16th, 2016 at 2:33 pm

  • Paul Thompson June 16, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    “It’s not about naming and shaming”. Nope, it’s about willful neglect of duty. By not naming and shaming, this scumbag is doing the same thing again. And that is SHAMEFUL. This is a shameful LACK of diligence. Is there a Netherlands version of ORI? There should be considering the plethora of misconduct stories from the Netherlands. It seems plausible that this notion of “not our problem, we fobbed him off on some other institution” is a factor in the dubious and concerning ethical culture in Netherlands science.

    • Paul Thompson June 16, 2016 at 2:45 pm

      OK, I guess that it’s the Netherlands Board on Research Integrity. What are their rules on barring researchers from funding? Do they, like the ORI, publish, in the public record, the results of misconduct investigations? If not, why do they not do this? How many more dodgy researchers are being hidden by this game of 3-card Fraudulent Monte?

      • Marco June 16, 2016 at 3:32 pm

        LOWI cannot impose sanctions, because it does not control any funding. ORI does, and can thus impose sanctions, but only regarding the funding they hand out.
        LOWI is more like an appellate court – and indeed publishes its findings, all in anonymized form, at (The references to the Board in many texts are, I think, to the CWI, the local research integrity commissions at the universities).

    • Frits Rosendaal June 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm

      This is a comment with quite a few strong words condemning the ethics of a whole country… Firstly, there are differences between one place and another. For instance, in The Netherlands the media will never publish the names of criminals, even when convicted, nor show their faces. Apart from an ethical discussion whether making names known on the internet would mean a ‘ life sentence’ , it is quite likely that if an institution here published names, it could be sued for damages. Still, Mr Thompson has a point that one would not want scientific misconduct to go on at another institute. This is why anonymised reports are made public, but a full, non-anonymised report is sent to relevant parties, including current employers, granting institutions and the Public Prosecution Office. Moreover, it is quite unthinkable that within scientific subfields names would not be obvious.
      Mr Thompson also comments on the large number of reports on scientific misconduct that have over recent years come from The Netherlands. Assuming the number is indeed larger than from other places, does that mean there is less misconduct in those places, or less whistleblowing and less transparency?

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.