In December, we reported on the case of Timothy Sheehy, a former government contractor who was found to have faked results. ORI found that Sheehy
fabricated the quantitative and qualitative data for RNA and DNA purportedly extracted from 900 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) colorectal tissue samples presented in Table 1 of the CEBP paper and falsely reported successful methodology to simultaneously recover nucleic acids from FFPE tissue specimens, when neither the extractions nor analyses of the FFPE samples were done. Thus, the main conclusions of the CEBP paper are based on fabricated data and are false.
Sheehy agreed to ask that one of his papers be retracted. The retraction notice has appeared:
The article titled “Simultaneous Recovery of DNA and RNA from Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue and Application in Epidemiologic Studies,” which was published in the April 2010 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention (1), is being retracted at the request of the author, Timothy Sheehy, following an investigation conducted by The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The ORI investigation made a finding of misconduct that affects the main conclusions of this article, related specifically to the data in Table 1, concluding that author Timothy Sheehy “fabricated the quantitative and qualitative data for RNA and DNA purportedly extracted from 900 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) colorectal tissue samples presented in Table 1 of the CEBP paper and falsely reported successful methodology to simultaneously recover nucleic acids from FFPE tissue specimens, when neither the extractions nor analyses of the FFPE samples were done. Thus, the main conclusions of the CEBP paper are based on fabricated data and are false” (2).
No other authors on the article are named in the findings of the ORI investigation of this article.
The paper has been cited 16 times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, with one of those citations appearing after the ORI notice did.
Hat tip: Rolf Degen
So, admittedly without having read the paper, how is it possible that the entire methodology and results of a paper could be falsified by the second author without anyone else on the author list being implicated?
Surprising indeed. Another good reason why the disclosure of author contributions should be mandatory in all journals.
The wording of the retraction — stating that there was “an investigation conducted by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) — was incorrect. The investigation was done, as always under the HHS/ORI regulations, by the institution where the misconduct occurred — followed by extensive oversight review and sometimes additional findings by the ORI.
As ORI clearly stated in its public notice of ORI findings (in the link provide by RW above): “Based on the report of an investigation conducted by SAIC-Frederick, Inc., and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found. . . “