A former postdoc at the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) made up data for 59 experiments that never happened, according to new findings by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity.
The ORI found that Rahul Agrawal “knowingly, intentionally, and/or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated:”
qRT-PCR data in fifty-nine (59) Excel files by:
— conceiving Cycle Threshold (CT) values and PCR machine run identification numbers and run dates for fifty-nine (59) experiments that were not conducted
— inserting falsified and/or fabricated CT values in fifty-four (54) files that originated from one (1) Excel template with a single file creation date to represent distinct experimental runs with different experimental dates in exported Excel files from the PCR machine
— utilizing an earlier PCR machine calibration date in four (4) Excel files to represent experiments completed at a later date
CFC and FF assay images in four (4) PowerPoint files by:
— representing eight (8) images of CFC and FF assays in cell culture plates as the overexpression of LINC00379 or LINC00380 in human alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma RD and Rh41 cells when the cultured cells did not overexpress the specific LINC RNA
Agrawal agreed to have any federally funded research supervised for a year beginning on August 8.
Agrawal, who was a PhD student at the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi before becoming a postdoc at the NCI, did not respond to a request for comment from Retraction Watch.
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, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), 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 [email protected].
One year of supervision? That’s a slap on the wrist. Hey, it’s just cancer.
I feel like in academia the competition is so fierce, even a small demerit will essentially be a career-killer.
Maybe you have to reach 60 faked experiments to get a real ban, who knows? 😉
This is all the discipline he receives? What’s the disincentive to do it again, or the disincentive communicated to others considering doing the same?
An NIH “post doc”?
Why no penalty for his absent or incompetent mentor?
Don Kornfeld
PhD in August 2017 from India, thus likely start at NCI a bit after that; NIH report + ORI oversight review published in August 2019; no papers involved, only raw data – I’d say they caught this guy really fast, so I doubt his mentor was absent or incompetent, Donald.
So, he made up 59 experiments, and he gets a year of supervision? Is this a joke? This guy should be in jail, and he should be deported, immediately after serving his jail sentence.
It is going to be exceedingly difficult to keep track of this dodgy fellow, as the name Rahul Agrawal is apparently quite common. I did a search on LinkedIn, and found at least 30 (I stopped looking at that point). Thus, relying on public information to protect institutions against persons like this is questionable. Why is the consequence for such massive malfeasance set at such a low level?
The weak penalty is probably because nothing fake was published. The experiments were fake, but without publishing the fake data it’s less of an infraction. Still, I’d think he’d lose his funding at least. Good catch.
A tiger doesn’t change its stripes. If it happened this early in his career because he felt pressure to produce, he’ll revert to the same tactic when he feels pressured again. He should not only lose his funding, he should be banned for life from ever receiving government funding again., and be required to pay back the funding already received. PERIOD