A liver researcher who worked at Yale University for 15 years faked data in multiple papers and grant applications, according to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
Carlo Spirli, who rose to the rank of associate professor before leaving Yale in 2020, “engaged in research misconduct by knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsifying and/or fabricating data” in four published papers, two presentations, and three NIH grant applications, the ORI said in announcing its findings today.
Spirli, according to the ORI:
knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly falsified and/or fabricated Western blot image data for cholangiopathies in a murine model of Congenital Hepatic Fibrosis (CHF) by reusing blot images, with or without manipulating them to conceal their similarities, and falsely relabeling them as data representing different experiments or proteins and falsifying quantitative data in associated graphs purportedly derived from those images in twenty-one (21) figures included in four (4) papers, two (2) presentations, and three (3) grant applications. In the absence of reliable image and numerical data, the figures, statistical analyses, and related text also are false.
The papers were published in Hepatology. One, from 2015, was retracted at the end of 2022. It has received 16 citations, 15 of which came before the retraction and one since, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
Another of the papers, published in 2012, has been cited 48 times, and was corrected in 2022. A different 2012 paper has been cited 49 times, and a 2013 paper has been cited 39 times.
Spirli, whose now-deleted LinkedIn profile suggests he now works at Guilford, Conn.-based AI Therapeutics, agreed to a four-year ban on federal funding beginning late last month, and to correct or retract the other three papers named in the ORI finding. Neither he nor Brigette Roberts, the CEO of AI Therapeutics, immediately responded to a request for comment from Retraction Watch.
Spirli was awarded more than $1.2 million for an NIH grant, “Cross talk between epithelial, inflammatory and mesenchymal cells in the development of portal fibrosis,” that ran from 2015 through 2017.
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].
“Spiral, according to the ORI”. I assume this is referring to Spirli.
Fixed, thanks.
Maybe it’s a reference to a “downward spirli”.
Carlo Spirili has already had his career.
In a better world somebody who didn’t fake data should have had that career. That is a true measure of his scientific contribution.
At one time companies who did business with the Feds had to sign a “corporate integrity agreement” (CIA), which in essence states that no one working on a project related to a federal interest has any current federal action against them. It might be worth asking ORI if they are still doing CIAs and, if so, the scope of any activity the CIA might limit?
Dear Paul Krueger,
You could ask ORI if they are still issuing “Corporate integrity agreements” (CIAs).
You sound an expert in that field.
Fernando: Name ain’t “Paul,” and at one time I was (to use your term) “an expert,” having to review one of my 20 years of ORI cases for respondent-relief from a CIA type issue. (Our respondent wanted a higher paying job overseeing the company’s research but he said that was precluded by the CIA.)
Try to think constructively about this: a CIA potentially extends the Federal sanctions for misconduct to respondents who might think that they can flee to industry to avoid any cost of their proven misconduct. Chances are, industry wants them because of the same research.
But I don’t know if CIAs still exist, and there is no reason ORI would have to reply to me about this. But it is one way to extend the ‘cost’ of engaging in misconduct.
Anyone who fakes data, images or any information should sign a release that they know they will have to return all funding, governmental or otherwise + be stripped of their PhD + at least half a million dollars. The reality is they do multiple millions of dollars of harm and their “work” can harm people for years.
It’s true that their career supplanted other researcher(s)’ careers, which further hurts people. They need to be liable, if for no other reasons than to enable better research to be funded and to deter others.
That would be really lovely.
However, Dr. Carlo Spirli has significantly contributed to hepatology (H-index 40) and his most works are clean.
“Oh no, I assure you, parts of it are excellent.”
According to Pubmed Spirli C has 54 works. From the ORI case summary 4 of the 54 are not clean.
4/54 not clean, a cause for concern?
That’s up to you
If H-index is the Hepatology-index, H=40 is pretty good, for sure.
Pierro Anversa, Carlo Croce, and this guy. What do they have in common (other than they were into fake data?).
All born and graduated in Italy? (but does that really matter?)