Science Signaling has retracted a 2017 paper marred by nearly a dozen instances of problematic figures which an institutional investigation concluded were the result of shoddy work on the federally-funded study — but not deliberate misconduct.
The article, “The receptor tyrosine kinase AXL mediates nuclear translocation of the epidermal growth factor receptor,” came from a group led by Toni Brand, then of the Department of Human Oncology at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, in Madison, where most of the co-authors were based as well.
The paper has been cited 28 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science. The researchers presented an abstract of the study at the 2017 annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, although that does not appear to have been cited.
According to the retraction notice:
Allegations of research misconduct were made about the Research Article “The receptor tyrosine kinase AXL mediates nuclear translocation of the epidermal growth factor receptor” by T. M. Brand, M. Iida, K. L. Corrigan, C. M. Braverman, J. P. Coan, B. G. Flanigan, A. P. Stein, R. Salgia, J. Rolff, R. J. Kimple, D. L. Wheeler, published in Science Signaling on 3 January 2017 (1). After an investigation by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison, the investigating committee found that that various data in Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2C, 2E, 4B, 5D, 6A, and 6C, as well as in figs. S2B and S4 were duplicated, mislabeled, or had other anomalies. The committee found that these issues were due to carelessness and lack of attention to detail rather than through any intent to deceive, and thus concluded that no research misconduct was committed. During the course of the investigation, it was discovered that whereas many of the figures could be updated with the original data, in some cases, the original data could not be identified. Thus, a complete correction of the record is not possible. Although it was determined by the investigating committee that these issues likely did not affect the overall conclusions of the study, the authors have requested that the paper be retracted in full to preserve the integrity of the scientific literature. The author Jana Rolff could not be contacted. The other authors of the Research Article have confirmed to the Editor of Science Signaling that they all concur with the retraction and apologize to the scientific community for any inconvenience caused. The Editor apologized for the delay in acting on this matter.
The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Army and the American Cancer Society.
Brand has left academia and appears now to be teaching science at a private school in Mill Valley, Calif.
We emailed Deric Wheeler, the senior and corresponding author, for comment but have not heard back.
Update, 0000 UTC, 11/12/21: Twitter user Cheshire notes that the errors were first pointed out on PubPeer:
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal 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 [email protected].
The abilities of the earnest committees to avoid finding misconduct boggle the mind. Do research misconduct findings require repayment of grants but “carelessness” is water under the bridge?
“ data in Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2C, 2E, 4B, 5D, 6A, and 6C, as well as in figs. S2B and S4 were duplicated, mislabeled, or had other anomalies. The committee found that these issues were due to carelessness and lack of attention to detail rather than through any intent to deceive, and thus concluded that no research misconduct was committed”
> Do research misconduct findings require repayment of grants but “carelessness” is water under the bridge?
It will obviously depend on the specific grant, but I do think this is indeed an important concern. If an internal committee would find a case of misconduct, they would at least open up the university to being sued for the money even if it is not automatic. Which is one important reason why such investigations should be done by an external commission.
The definition of research misconduct needs to be modified to include an element of culpability. The current situation is akin to what would happen if you killed someone but the only options for prosecution were capital murder or nothing. As in the criminal code there needs to be an element of culpability and if the misconduct isn’t purposeful on the part of the PI inclusion of fraudulent data in publications or grant proposals is clearly being done knowingly, or recklessly or negligently and this would be much simpler to establish. Publishing fraudulent data isn’t a crime but making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements when contracting with the federal government is a crime and this applies to NIH grant applications. Expanding the definition of research misconduct would certainly require more manpower for investigations but using the threat of Federal prosecution for fraud in grant proposals might be a way to reduce the investigative burden by incentivizing fraudsters to confess guilt and cooperate with the investigation.