Soon after Retraction Watch launched, one of our readers posed an important question: How should researchers note that their papers have been retracted?
The question is important mostly for transparency reasons. (We’ve also wondered, however, whether authors whose papers have been retracted because of journal office errors should be forced to list those.) Should they remove any reference to retracted papers? Leave them, but mark them as retracted?
With that in mind, two examples. First, Raphael Stricker, of Union Square Medical Associates, an internist in San Francisco who specializes in treating chronic Lyme Disease. Chronic Lyme is a controversial diagnosis, to say the least, which explains why Stricker’s practice does not take insurance or Medicare and links to this explanation. In a recent survey published in the Journal of Pediatrics, half of Connecticut physicians said they didn’t think chronic Lyme exists, and 48 percent said they were unsure. Stricker took issue with that survey in a subsequent letter.
And he has also published at least one paper on the even more controversial Morgellon’s Disease, in which patients allege they have microscopic fibers coming out of their skin. The CDC is investigating the condition after pressure from patient groups, but doctors seem to universally think it has psychiatric roots.
The reason we were interested in Stricker’s work was that he lists a now-retracted 1985 New England Journal of Medicine paper on his online CV without any acknowledgment it was retracted. So we wanted to know why.
Here’s what Stricker told Retraction Watch by email:
I appreciate your interest in this topic. You undoubtedly know that I was the first author on the retracted NEJM paper. You also know that I did not sign the retraction letter. In fact, I vehemently opposed the retraction, sending two rebuttal letters to the NEJM editors, who refused to publish them.
Over the 20+ years since this process occurred, there have been three significant developments. First, two research groups independently confirmed the basic findings in the retracted paper. Second, it became clear that the retraction was a politically-motivated process. In a nutshell, my research findings were being used by certain scientists to argue that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Although I had no part in this debate, UCSF was extremely embarassed by it and obviously wanted to discredit my work. Third, I have learned that the university threatened my coauthors if they refused to sign the retraction letter. Believe me, there is nothing scarier than going up against UCSF.
For these reasons I have ignored the politically motivated, bogus retraction of the NEJM article. There is much more to the story, but I think that those details are better left wrapped in the cobwebs of time.
There is much more to the story, as Stricker notes. The NEJM retraction followed an investigation by the Office of Research Integrity. In their 1995 final report, ORI wrote:
An investigation conducted by the University found that Dr. Stricker falsified data for a manuscript and a PHS-supported publication reporting research on AIDS. In the manuscript, Dr. Stricker selectively suppressed data that did not support his hypothesis, and reported consistently positive data whereas only one of four experiments had produced positive results. In the publication, Dr. Stricker reported that an antibody was found in 29 of 30 homosexuals, but not found in non-homosexuals. However, Dr. Stricker’s control data, which he suppressed, showed the antibody in 33 of 65 non-homosexuals. The falsified data was used as the basis for a grant application to the National Institutes of Health. The ORI concurred in the University’s finding. Dr. Stricker executed a Voluntary Exclusion and Settlement Agreement in which he has agreed not to apply for Federal grant or contract funds and will not serve on PHS advisory committees, boards or peer review groups for a three year period beginning April 1, 1993. The publication “Target platelet antigen in homosexual men with immune thrombocytopenia” in the New England Journal of Medicine, 313: 1315-1380, 1985 has been retracted (New England Journal of Medicine, 325: 1487,1991).
Now compare Stricker’s approach to that of Larry Pease, a Mayo Clinic immunologist. As the Rochester Post-Bulletin reported last year, Pease’s lab was investigated by the Mayo because one of his post-docs, Suresh Radhakrishnan, was “accused of tampering with other scientists’ attempts to duplicate his results.”
A number of papers co-authored by Pease and Radhakrishnan have since been retracted. And you won’t have to dig far at all to find that out. Right on Pease’s faculty profile page — not even buried on a CV — is this:
After years of investigation, we learned our IgM antibody studies were compromised (refer to: Pease LR; Retraction. Induction of a gene expression program in dendritic cells with a cross-linking IgM antibody to the co-stimulatory molecule B7-DC. FASEBJ 2010;24:2135-2136).
After an extensive re-examination of the studies, the work on the immune modulatory properties of this IgM antibody have been stopped, and the related manuscripts retracted.
Now that’s transparency.
So what do Retraction Watch readers think? Should retracted papers show up on a CV? And if so, should they be marked? Take our poll:
[polldaddy poll=”4450736″]
It would depend on what the CV is being used for (sometimes you are asked to provide shortened CV’s for grant applications or biosketches). However, in complete CV, one should have a separate section for retracted papers and a brief note for each as to why the retraction occurred. Even if you contest the retraction, you should mark that it is contested.
Whether Stricker agrees with NEJM’s retraction is irrelevant. The fact remains that the paper was retracted, and it should be noted as such. (He could always note it as “retracted under protest” or something similar if he doesn’t want to just say retracted.)
I like both points made above by James & Shannon. And hope that for most of us, we never have to worry about such a thing!
I find it interesting that you use a chronic Lyme doctor as your example. That, in and of itself, seems to show bias and adds to a lack of credibility on your part. Recently released research in 2012 upholds the persistence of the Lyme bacteria in monkeys treated with the standard antibiotic treatment that humans today are given for the same bacteria. That research is in favor of the existence of chronic Lyme. Read it for yourself:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029914
“Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi in Rhesus Macaques following Antibiotic Treatment of Disseminated Infection”
Now, having said that, if you knew anything about Lyme disease, you would not have made the uneducated remarks that you have made above. Lyme disease has a total of FOUR double-blinded studies. Only one of those studies found in favor of the IDSA. One found in favor of chronic Lyme doctors and two were found to have serious design flaws. A total of less than 200 patients participated in all four studies.
Regardless of your opinion of Dr. Stricker, your evaluation of chronic Lyme in general was lacking and biased. You are fighting for accuracy and truth in medical research, are you not? If so, you were EXTREMELY careless in your stereotyping of Lyme disease physicians and you provided OPINIONS of some doctors regarding Lyme disease while ignoring evidence. Shameful.
I believe your article regarding retracted papers should be retracted as your Lyme stereotyping is based on opinion and not on good solid evidence. I have no opinion of Dr. Stricker. I don’t know the man. What I know is that on either side of the medical debate, chronic Lyme or no chronic Lyme, you will find good, honest physicians and you will find liars. That is what you should have said. If you want to point fingers at Dr. Stricker, you could have done so without including your biased opinions regarding chronic Lyme disease.