Five years after saying it won’t retract Macchiarini paper, journal does so

Paolo Macchiarini

In 2018, the journal Respiration was adamant that it wouldn’t retract a 2015 paper co-authored by once-respected transplant surgeon Paolo Macchiarini. Now, the editors at Respiration seem to have changed their mind.

Macchiarini is most well known for his controversial artificial windpipe implants. Seven out of the eight patients who had artificial windpipes implanted from Macchiarini suffered complications after the surgery

Five years ago, the Karolinska Institute (KI) in Sweden found that Macchiarini and three co-authors of his were guilty of misconduct in the 2015 study, and recommended that it should be pulled. 

Thomas Nold, then the editor-in-chief of Respiration, previously told Retraction Watch, however, that the journal decided against retraction: 

In any retraction case we conduct our own analysis and consider all available information. In this specific case we needed to consider four other renowned institutions besides KI and the 26 authors of the article. Based on the evidence available to the journal we do not see ourselves in the position to make a judgement. We see the journal as a forum, and by publishing the different statements including KI’s report concerning the article our aim is to make the conflict completely transparent.

Last month, the journal reversed course and pulled the 2015 paper, titled: “Autologous Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells as Treatment in Refractory Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.”

By our count, this brings Macchiarini up to nine retractions. 

According to Karolinska Institute, although the 2015 paper included an ethical permit, the underlying research did not. 

The retraction notice, released last month, stated: 

Karolinska Institutet found that the research “lacked any biological hypothesis based on either in vitro or in vivo (animal) data. The notebook also lacks notes on any advance discussion of the risks and benefits of the treatment, the theory on which it was based, the results of preclinical or other studies demonstrating effect, and safety; nor of any discussion that followed from the deterioration of the patient’s condition, in spite of which it was decided to continue the experimental treatment. This contravenes articles 14, 16, 17, and 21 of the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki (articles 31, 21, 18, and 12 of the 2008 version).” [1]

Upon re-evaluation of the case and in line with the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines for Retractions recommending that “Editors should consider retracting a publication if […] it reports unethical research” [2], we are retracting this article.

Ana I. Teixeira, Adil Duru and Vanessa Lundin agree with this retraction. The remaining authors did not respond or could not be reached for comment within the timeframe given.

In 2018, Respiration published a response to Karolinska’s report from three authors of the study including Macchiarini. It reads: 

This decision is contrary to the assessment of the Central Ethical Review Board of Sweden, where an expert group analyzed the research and concluded that it does not constitute grounds to determine scientific misconduct.

Study co-author Philipp Jungebluth wrote in the 2018 response: 

​​The decision that has now been taken by the KI is purely politically motivated. The explanation for their decision is poor and the accusations they made are false and incorrect.

Martin O. Bergö, vice president of Karolinska Institute, told Retraction Watch:

…the journal has decided to retract the article and we support this decision. Obviously, based on the communication between our previous president and the journal, we believe the decision should have been taken sooner.

Felix J.F. Herth, the current Respiration editor-in-chief and a medical researcher at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, has not responded to a request for comment.

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].

One thought on “Five years after saying it won’t retract Macchiarini paper, journal does so”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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