Jane Lubchenco, the deputy director for climate and environment in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has been banned from publishing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) and from other NAS activities for five years.
The move, first reported by Axios, comes ten months after PNAS retracted a paper that Lubchenco had edited despite the fact that one of the authors was her brother-in-law and that she had been his PhD advisor. The paper contained an error, but PNAS editor in chief May Berenbaum told us at the time that the conflict of interest would have been enough to prompt a retraction.
In January of this year, the American Accountability Foundation, which calls itself “a charitable and educational organization that conducts non-partisan governmental oversight research and fact-checking so Americans can hold their elected leaders accountable” and has also been called a “slime machine targeting dozens of Biden nominees” by The New Yorker, asked the NAS to investigate. Thomas Jones, the AAF’s founder, wrote, in part:
While PNAS has had to retract articles in the past for more pedestrian reasons like errors, according to the extensive database compiled by the website Retraction Watch the retraction of the article Dr. Lubchenco reviewed was the first time in the history of the database that the editors have had to retract an article for conflict of interest.
The next month, Republican members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology asked the Biden White House to investigate the issues.
In an August 9 letter, NAS Home Secretary Susan Wessler wrote to the AAF’s Jones:
I write to inform you that the conduct review process has been completed. Effective August 8, for a five-year period, the NAS Council has barred Jane Lubchenco from being involved in NAS publications; serving on or participating in NAS and NRC program activities; and receiving NAS honors or awards.
In a statement reported by Axios, Lubchenco said:
I accept these sanctions for my error in judgment in editing a paper authored by some of my research collaborators — an error for which I have publicly stated my regret.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
As an amateur interested in research integrity, I’ve often wondered why all journals do not require disclosure of potential conflicts between the authors, the journal, and/or the editors. Just like any disclosure, conflict disclosures do not automatically cast aspersion upon a paper, but the editors, reviewers, and readers, are owed a duty of transparency. When I’ve had discussions about potential problems in a paper and only then discover that one of the authors has a relationship that wasn’t obvious… I’m immediately suspicious. Why isn’t this the standard practice?
Even in fields where conflict disclosure is standard practice, the rate of compliance is low.
https://cdn.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/issues/articles/ajo04407e207.pdf
‘the American Accountability Foundation … has also been called a “slime machine targeting dozens of Biden nominees” by The New Yorker’
Wait … you report that she did, in fact, edit a paper by her relative, and that she was, in fact, banned from the NAS for five years, but you feel the need to ferret out a quote from an actively partisan media source that adds absolutely nothing to the facts of the case?
Shame.
Given the political nature of how this was discovered, it would be shameful for Retraction Watch to *not* have mentioned this. Good of them.
+1.
White House official does something unethical, but it was discovered by an organization a different organization doesn’t like, so we can all feel better I guess.
Please read that link to the New Yorker article and then ask yourself if you feel differently.
Indeed. It’s an ad hominem attack by… while, to use an ad hominem attack, a slime machine.
It is too bad that RW chose to quote an ad hominem against the organization that found a serious problem. Very imbalanced and not relevant.
It adds, by telling us there’s a certain class of people who think the main job of “science” should be to serve as propaganda in their war against their political opponents.
Well, if it’s in favour of accountability, great. If it’s only in favour of accountability by one party, and gives others a pass, then it’s a partisan political operation. Guess what? It’s a partisan operation. For example, check out this page on their website.https://www.americanaccountabilityfoundation.com/meet-the-team
I think we can establish that it’s safe to have your predilections and your leanings, and still have integrity. They are openly stating where and who they worked for. But I do hope they press all sides
And from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, total silence? It is not a good look to have a deputy director in an organisation concerned with science policy who is barred from publishing in a major journal for misconduct. It seem absurd that science policies are being developed by people sanctioned for misconduct.