A former researcher at the University of Kentucky committed misconduct in both published papers and grant applications, according to a federal watchdog.
The finding from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) comes two years after the University of Kentucky announced that it had concluded that the scientist, Stuart Jarrett, had committed misconduct on four papers and two federal grant applications – and demoted his supervisor.
Jarrett, a Wales native who left the school in September 2019, faked data in studies of melanoma and reported it in 28 figures in four papers, one funded NIH grant, and two unfunded NIH grants, according to ORI. “[T]hese acts constitute a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community,” ORI said.
The finding is the third such announcement from the ORI within a week, following one from Texas Biomed and another from the University of California, Los Angeles. In those cases, as is more typical, the sanctions involved supervision of federally funded research.
But Jarrett received a somewhat harsher penalty for his misdeeds than is typical: A four-year ban on receiving federal research funding. He also has been forbidden from serving “in any advisory capacity” to the Public Health Service, including acting as a peer reviewer for the National Institutes of Health, for four years, effective July 18, 2022.
The ORI finding references grants worth well over $20 million, but it is unclear which specific applications included faked data, since most of the grants would have more than one application.
We were unable to find contact information for Jarrett.
As we reported in August 2020, the Jarrett scandal led to the demotion of John D’Orazio, a senior cancer researcher at Kentucky. At the time, the university said:
Although he did not collect the data that was investigated, Dr. D’Orazio, a physician-scientist and chief of pediatric hematology and oncology, had oversight of the laboratory and the questioned data were included in papers co-authored by Jarrett, D’Orazio and others. The investigation team cited a lack of oversight by D’Orazio but concluded that the issue did not rise to the level of research misconduct on his part.
D’Orazio is not named in the ORI finding.
The four papers are:
- Jarrett SG, Wolf Horrell EM, Christian PA, Vanover JC, Boulanger MC, Zou Y, D’Orazio JA. PKA-mediated phosphorylation of ATR promotes recruitment of XPA to UV-induced DNA damage. Molecular Cell. 2014. Published: June 19, 2014. Not yet retracted. Cited 69 times, according to Clarivate Analytics, including 21 times since the University of Kentucky’s announcement of findings of misconduct;
- Jarrett SG, Carter, KM Bautista RM, He D, Wang C, and D’Orazio JA. Sirtuin 1-mediated deacetylation of XPA DNA repair protein enhances its interaction with ATR protein and promotes cAMP-induced DNA repair of UV damage. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2018. Retracted. Cited 28 times, including 12 after retraction;
- Jarrett SG, Carter, KM, Shelton, BJ and D’Orazio JA. The melanocortin signaling cAMP axis accelerates repair and reduces mutagenesis of platinum-induced DNA damage. Scientific Reports, 2017. Retracted. Cited 14 times, including once after retraction;
- Jarrett SG, Wolf Horrell EM, D’Orazio JA. AKAP12 mediates PKA-induced phosphorylation of ATR to enhance nucleotide excision repair. Nucleic Acids Research, 2016. Retracted. Cited 21 times, including once after retraction.
The ORI said it has requested retraction of the 2014 paper in Molecular Cell.
The university also flagged a fifth paper, for honest error, which has since received a correction:
- Bautista RM, Carter KM, Jarrett SG, Napier D, Wakamatsu K, Ito S, D’Orazio JA. Cutaneous pharmacologic cAMP induction induces melanization of the skin and improves recovery from ultraviolet injury in melanocortin 1 receptor-intact or heterozygous skin. Pigment Cell and Melanoma, 2019. Cited 8 times.
Update, 2200 UTC, 8/8/22: We were curious why the ORI finding did not refer to Jarrett’s agreement with the sanctions, which is typical. An ORI spokesperson told us:
ORI followed its procedures under the regulation: 42 C.F.R. Part 93.405 – when ORI makes a finding of research misconduct, we notify the respondent in a charge letter. In accordance with § 93.501, the respondent may contest the findings and can request a hearing before an ALJ within 30 days of receipt of the charge letter. As per § 93.406, after the 30-day period passes with no hearing request from the respondent, ORI’s findings become final and the administrative actions are implemented. In this case, the respondent did not request a hearing, so it did not go through an ALJ, and ORI’s findings are final.
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, 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].
This system of reporting and making accountable the PIs of labs that generated doctored data are confusing to say the least. How is it possible the senior author of the papers and the PI of the lab is not mentioned in the ORI report? As stated by the University: “Lack of oversight by the PI does not rise to the level of research misconduct”? Makes no sense! The role of the PI is to make sure that the data generated are rigorous and that the reported data are reliable! If you fail to do so, in my view, you are an accomplice and should be held accountable. I cannot understand this legal mumbo jumbo! Why ORI does not inform the public about the PI of the lab in which federal funds were missed used? This reminds me of the Sarkar case at Wayne State who in spite of been found to have committed serious misconduct by the university, ORI only investigated and reported Sarkar’s PhD student (Zhiwei Wang) without mentioning Sarkar’s name and/or penalizing his misconduct. Only the student was penalized. Sarkar retracted more than 40 papers (not only papers with Wang), received millions in federal funding for years and yet he was never found guilty of misconduct by ORI. ORI needs to review their policies or provide an explanation about the responsibility of the PIs.
So wonder where Jarrett is now?
The University of Kentucky affords plausible deniability for failure to oversee fraudulent research to some investigators but not to others. Like Dr D’Orazio, then Dean of the College of Medicine (and now provost) Robert DiPaola was determined to not be responsible for fake data in a retracted publication and funded but relinquished R01 proposal even though he was corresponding author of the retracted paper and PI of the grant. On the other hand, Xianglin Shi’s claims that rogue lab members generated fraudulent data in his lab fell on deaf ears. Dr Shi’s case has still not been closed by ORI.
“But Jarrett received a somewhat harsher penalty for his misdeeds than is typical: A four-year ban on receiving federal research funding.”
As he seems to no longer be active in research, it is not very relevant for this specific case, but it is very telling that this would be considered harsher than normal. It’s basically a slap on the wrist.