Cancer researcher banned from federal funding for faking data in nearly 400 images in 16 grant applications

A former associate professor at Purdue University faked data in two published papers and hundreds of images in 16 grant applications, according to a U.S. government research watchdog. 

Alice C. Chang, whose publications and grants listed her name as Chun-Ju Chang, received nearly $700,000 in funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through grant applications that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) said contained fake data. She will be banned from receiving federal grants for a decade – a more severe sanction than ORI has typically imposed in recent years.

In its findings, ORI said Chang, who was an associate professor of basic medical sciences at Purdue’s College of Veterinary Medicine:

knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated data from the same mouse models or cell lines by reusing the data, with or without manipulation, to represent unrelated experiments from different mouse models or cell lines with different treatments in three hundred eighty-four (384) figure panels in sixteen (16) grant applications.

Two of the grant applications were funded. Chang received $688,196 from the National Cancer Institute, a division of the (NIH), from 2018-2019 for “Targeting metformin-directed stem cell fate in triple negative breast cancer.” The other grant ORI says was submitted in 2014 and funded, “Targeting cell polarity machinery to exhaust breast cancer stem cell pool,” does not show up in NIH RePorter. The rest of the grants were not approved. 

We found a Chun-Ju Chang who is dean of the College of Life Sciences at China Medical University in Taiwan and has published papers with a group that Chun-Ju Chang at Purdue also published with. She did not immediately respond to our request for comment. 

ORI’s finding also stated Chang faked data in two papers supported by government funding by reusing figures reporting gene expression in mice and cells after drug treatments, relabeling them to say they showed the results of different experiments. According to the agency, she has agreed to request corrections for the papers: 

Between the two papers and 15 of the grant applications, ORI said that Chang reused gene expression data, sometimes with manipulation, in 119 figure panels. She reused other types of data and images in hundreds of figures across multiple grant applications, ORI found. 

As well as correcting the two papers, Chang agreed to a 10-year ban from all federal contracting, including grant funding. She also agreed not to serve in any advisory or consulting role with the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes the NIH, for that time period.

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].

4 thoughts on “Cancer researcher banned from federal funding for faking data in nearly 400 images in 16 grant applications”

  1. Why fabricating data included in grant applications (some of which were funded) is not a criminal offence, while fabricating a job offer letter is?

    1. In the US at least, fraud requires three or four legal elements (which you can find in Blacks Legal dictionary). There has to be: 1) A knowing falsification; 2) belief of that false statement; 3) action as a result of #2; and 4) “injury” as a result of #3.

      Meeting all the required elements that define a crime are difficult in science, and especially so for an unfunded application. (Several ORI respondents have been jailed, but those were for reasons other than the false science.)

      That is why ORI cases do not involve ‘criminal law’ but something called ‘administrative law.’ The standard of proof is much less in the latter ‘51%’, although most ORI cases would easily reach ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in the former (because it is scientists themselves who make those decisions).

  2. Also, why are fraudsters not required to pay back fraudulently obtained grants? It seems that should be done as a matter of course if a grant application is found to contain falsified information.

  3. Genetech , where Chang was a lead researcher is not releasing a list of papers or retractions of her work.
    Genentech 5 years 4 months
    Lead Clinical Scientist:Apr 2021 – Present
    Associate Clinical Scientist : Jan 2020 – Apr 2021
    Pharmacovigilance Clinical Specialist: Oct 2018 – Dec 2019
    Clinical Safety Associate:Sep 2017 – Sep 20181 year 1 month

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.