The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has ruled in a case we’ve been following for nearly two years — and which seems to have been launched after Retraction Watch readers took a careful look at figures from what appeared to be an unrelated case.
Takao Takahashi and Makato Suzuki, both former postdocs at a cancer research center at UT-Southwestern, both “knowingly, intentionally, and recklessly falsified data” in a total of 10 papers, according to the ORI. Takahashi, now at Gifu University in Japan, was responsible for fakery in four papers, while Suzuki, now at Kumamoto University Hospital, also in Japan, falsified data in six.
We reported on the retraction of the four Takahashi papers, and one of the Suzuki papers, in November 2012. At that time, Adi Gazdar, the head of the lab where the researchers worked, told us that
…the papers came to the attention of UT officials when a figure turned up in the work of a Spanish investigator named José Román-Gómez, whom we covered back in April [2012] (see this comment from “amw” putting some pieces together). According to Gazdar, investigators identified problems with the plagiarized image — problems which prompted him to conduct his own inquiry.
As we reported then:
Gazdar said he eventually reviewed nearly 20 papers, identifying five that had suspect images. Takao Takahashi — the first author on the two retracted articles listed above, who now works in Japan — accepted “sole responsibility” for four of the articles, Gazdar said, but refused to do so for a fifth. Another former post-doc “accepted responsibility” for the last paper, Gazdar said. Neither researcher has acknowledged wrongdoing.
We’ve now reported on a total of nine retractions and one expression of concern from Gazdar’s lab. The list of ten papers in the two ORI reports is not exactly the same as the ten papers we’re reported on, so we imagine there will be at least one more retraction.
Both Takahashi and Suzuki, the ORI reports:
falsified data representing glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) loading controls and methylated/unmethylated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) gel panels.
Both researchers agreed to have any federally funded research supervised for three years, and that they would not serve on any NIH peer review committees for the same period of time.
This is the second time in a month that we’ve been reminded of the critical role Retraction Watch commenters can play in uncovering research misconduct. As Margaret Munro of Canada’s PostMedia reported last week about what happened after we noted one retraction by Cory Toth, who now has nine:
Outside observers were, however, more thorough than the faculty in assessing the problems with Toth’s studies. Subsequently, Retraction Watch identified other questionable data’ and a complaint triggered a university ‘Committee of Investigation’ process…
Post-publication peer review: “Doing basic quality checks so journals don’t have to!”
“Both researchers agreed to have any federally funded research supervised for three years, and that they would not serve on any NIH peer review committees for the same period of time.”
But they are now back in Japan, they don’t need no NIH funding?!
Do they really need funding anyway???
Another scandal emanating from Japan. I have for many months been indicating here at Retraction Watch, that there exists a really dark underbelly here in Japan in terms of research and, most importantly, the institutional protection that is being offered to individuals like this. In my field of study, I have already registered a few cases in which retractions and duplications have not been met with any resistance by heads of department, and public or peer scrutiny. Those individuals retain their positions, their salaries, their fame and they have suffered ZERO consequences. Why is the Japanese public not revolted? After all, in most cases, it’s the tax-payer’s money that is being squandered. In typical Japanese style, unless the media gets hold of the story, the academic fraud is left silently in the corner, to disappear, with the hopes that no one will discover it. When Takahashi and Suzuki got back to Japan, to their cozy positions with a nice office, a good salary and research and travel grants, I wonder how many individuals at those institutes were aware of these shenanigans that these “subarashii” (wonderful) researchers, often touted as such when they return from the US, were involved in? It’s almost as if, in this day and age, institutions do not keep tabs on the individuals they are doling out millions to. Most certainly an anonymous e-mail to the staff of these institutes would certainly be met with disgust, one thinks, by at least one conscientious individual who would actually do the right thing and seek the removal of these individuals from their positions, or any other positions in academia? Surely, contacts to MEXT would be met with deep concern…? (Oh, I forgot, my e-mails that get sent to MEXT don’t get acknowledged, and are actively ignored). Takahashi and Suzuki, two of the most common family names in Japan, most likely have been able to hide the truth simply because of the commonality of their names. But, RW readers have the responsibility of revealing the truth to the relevant Japanese authorities, even though there are serious risks involved since public disorder (including most possibly, whistle-blowing) is now an illegal offense. Times are tough for justice, REAL JUSTICE, in Japan. And it seems as if fraud pays well at least it provides a stable job and salary). It’s going to be a busy weekend, I see.
Dear JATdS. How do you explain the abysmal gap between the treatment of the STAP story and the Suzuki-Takahashi case? I’m aware that a direct comparison is not really warranted: the former case involved a top institution (RIKEN) and a topic for which the mass media are particularly keen on, while the latter involves less prominent institutions. However, Suzuki and Takahashi are working on topics of interest for the society (lung cancer), and the 10 now-retracted papers appeared in respected journals (IF in the range 2-9). So, where is the intrinsic difference between Haruko Obokata and Suzuki or Takahashi? Why the couple of papers eventually released in Nature (actually a single paper splitted in two parts) immediately sparked so huge attention, while ten years elapsed (sic: TEN years!) between the first faked paper published by Takahashi and the final ORI verdict?
Beg pardon?
Fait acompli.
accompli 🙂
French spelling is so weird…
Sylvain, thanks for correcting that! Need spell check every time… the answer to your question above may lie in the response provided by Bonjour below, which suggests two things: a) the Japanese Ministry of Education is failing to deal with the problem of academic fraud effectively (in my opinion, with failure as disaplyed by these two scientists, there should be a zero-tolerance policy); b) the two universities are clearly problematic because the signals they are sending out is that they are willing to employ individuals even though they are aware of the fraud that they have committed. The saddest part of the comment, I felt, by Kazuhiro Yoshida was: “Thank you very much for all you concern and interest toward this matter and you do not have to worry about this anymore.” It’s almost as if they are trying to say, don’t worry, the case is in good hands. It would be interesting to know what Kumamoto Universty says, but the response from Gifu University is, in my opinion, a reason to be extremely worried about academic integrity in Japanese medical institutes. Which patient wants to be treated by a doctor that has a “criminal academic” record, even if in another country? Not me.
In what way will this penalty serve to deter such conduct in this lab or any other.?
The individuals sanctioned were post docs working in a lab supported by Federal funds which very likely included funds for ”
Training”
At this point Senator Grassley would ask, Why has the Federal government not required that UT Southwestrn
return all funds related to the research and the training of the two post docs.?
If that were done more frequently, and well publicized, post-docs around the country might truly be mentored and the reports issued by such labs more likely to be based on true data.
Don
True. There must be an institutional responsibility. The head of lab should not be free of responsibility. He/she needs to closely monitor, what is going on in the own lab. If that means research goes on more slowly, then so be it. Too much meaningless stuff is published in biomedicine anyway. Labs that rush bad science out into the world get an unfair advantage over those who first think, then do good work and then publish truly meaningful stuff. One way to somewhat stop this is to stop PI’s funding irrespective of personal wrongdoing, once foul play has been detected in his/her lab.
True. There must be an institutional responsibility. The head of lab should not be free of responsibility. He/she needs to closely monitor, what is going on in the own lab.
——————————-
Not gonna happen.
These large medical research labs seem to work by having each postdoc running their own project, and then everybody is put on all papers produced in the lab. The head of the lab is very senior, has stopped doing hands-on research a long time ago, and probably knows only in very general terms what is going on. As long as papers keep coming nobody complains.
Having followed this story closely, out of concern and the lack of a public explanation, I contacted the faculties of both universities. I received the following e-mail from the Director of the Department of Surgical Oncology, Gifu University: “Dear [redacted]; Thank you very much for your E-mail. My name is Kazuhiro Yoshida, Director for Department of Surgical Oncology, Gifu University. Although we are not sure who you are and why you have contacted us or you might be somebody involved in such a matter or whoever from Europe. I appreciate very much for reminding us this sad and disappointing matter. Actually, I have contacted the Dean of Medical Department immediately after we have been informed from UT and then President of Gifu University and it has been already reported to the Ministry of Education of the Japanese Governmet. We have already performed all the necessary actions in Gifu University. Now everything is in the hand of the Japanese Government concerning this matter and he is ready to accept any decision from the Japanese Government. Thank you very much for all you concern and interest toward this matter and you do not have to worry about this anymore. Kazuhiro Yoshida”
Why did you assume that the Japanese managers were not already aware of the situation? BTW, I do not believe that it is the “duty” of the Retraction Watch readers to “reveal the truth to the authorities”, as the truth has usually already been revealed by someone else.