A cancer researcher at the University of Cambridge in the UK has retracted a paper from Cell after commenters on PubPeer questioned aspects of 10 images in the article.
Though an institutional investigation found the figures were “not reliable,” another of the authors objected to the retraction as “an overreaction.”
Steve Jackson, the University of Cambridge biology professor and lab leader, previously retracted two papers – including one in Nature and one in Science posted on the same day – after a Cambridge investigation found a co-author, Abderrahmane Kaidi, had falsified data.
Kaidi is not a co-author on the Cell paper, “hnRNP K: An HDM2 Target and Transcriptional Coactivator of p53 in Response to DNA Damage,” which appeared in 2005. The article has been cited more than 300 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
Jackson requested the retraction, according to the notice, published October 9. It stated:
We, the authors, have become aware of various duplications and strong similarities between images in the following figure panels: 1E, 1F, 3A, 4A, 4B, 4D, 4E, 6B, 7A, and 7B. These issues occur in both control data and in experimental data. Unfortunately, we no longer have access to the original results from the 2005 study and are therefore unable to ascertain how these issues arose. As these issues impact confidence in the paper’s conclusions, we are retracting the paper. We sincerely apologize to the scientific community for any inconvenience and confusion that we have caused.
Commenters on PubPeer had identified similarities in all of the figure panels mentioned in the retraction notice as early as March 2021.
In the notice, the authors also wrote: “none of the issues that we have become aware of relate to experiments carried out at KuDOS Pharmaceuticals, Ltd,” one of a few startups Jackson has founded based on his research. AstraZeneca in 2006 acquired KuDOS, which developed the cancer drug Lynparza, approved for sales and marketing in the US and EU.
A spokesperson for Cell Press said the publisher had no comment beyond the retraction notice. We reached out to Jackson for comment and received the following statement from a spokesperson for the University of Cambridge:
Professor Sir Steve Jackson was made aware of irregularities in figures in the Moumen et al. (2005) Cell paper, on which he is a co-author.
The University of Cambridge, with Professor Jackson’s full cooperation, investigated this matter and concluded that these figures are not reliable. The University found no evidence of wrongdoing by Professor Jackson.
Following this process, Professor Jackson contacted the Editor of Cell and has requested to retract the article.
The first author, Abdeladim Moumen, “declined to sign this retraction,” according to the notice. Moumen is a research director at the Moroccan Foundation for Advanced Science, Innovation and Research in Rabat, and founded a diagnostics startup of which he is chief scientific officer, according to his LinkedIn profile. Images in some of Moumen’s other papers have been flagged on PubPeer, as reported by For Better Science in 2021.
Moumen provided a detailed defense of the paper in response to our request for comment, and told us:
A thorough investigation conducted by the University of Cambridge concluded that no misconduct was established on my part or by any of the authors. The criticism leading to the retraction request was based solely on image comparison, alleging similarities between bands. However, these were most likely unintended errors during image assembly or paper editing. In fact, most of the criticized images involved tubulin controls, which could easily be redone without any fabrication. Thus, there was no incentive or need to manipulate these images.
It feels deeply unfair to retract a paper that presented original, reproducible findings over minor image issues that did not affect the scientific conclusions. In similar cases, when image concerns arise, authors are often asked to reproduce the experiments, which are then published online as corrections. In our case, the key findings have already been independently confirmed by other groups, which highlights the robustness and originality of our work.
I feel unfairly targeted by the retraction process and believe this situation has not been handled justly. Given the importance and impact of our work, I see this retraction as an overreaction to what are ultimately correctable mistakes.
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].
“Commenters on PubPeer had identified similarities in all of the figure panels mentioned in the retraction notice as early as March 2021. ”
“The University of Cambridge, with Professor Jackson’s full cooperation, investigated this matter and concluded that these figures are not reliable. ”
“Jackson requested the retraction, according to the notice, published October 9 [2024].”
That does seem a long time.
This article is incomplete. Where is the followup to Moumen’s claim that the findings have been reproduced by others?
Why doesn’t the editorial board at Retraction Watch REQUIRE an impact of Retraction(s) statement for EVERY article of this type, ESPECIALLY when the researcher responseable admits they made the errors / lied about results?
Yes, of course, reproduced by others later on.
Another hnRNP K retraction.
https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/50/13/7800/6619470?login=false
Whether or not the conclusions of a paper are subsequently supported by other publications and experiments is immaterial to the question of whether or not a paper’s data and conclusions stand on their own as a published work.
Loading controls aren’t just decorative hyphens used to underline data figures.
A reasonable response would be “Great, people can still read and cite those other, non-fraudulent papers after this one is retracted.”
I think a major pathway to fraud is when the researcher is very sure what the answer is, but the experiment didn’t work out. But once you start doing that you are unquestionably on a slippery slope, because now what counts is whether you can convince yourself you know the answer, not what the research says. I think this is the path Brian Wansinc took. You do not want to end up where he did.
Mary, at the moment I am not aware whether your ‘pathway to fraud’ has been articulated by others in the RI community, but for a while now, I have suspected that it is that type of thinking that underlies many instances of fabrication and falsification, especially in high profile non serial misconduct cases.