PLOS Pathogens has retracted a paper by a former group at Harvard following a postdoc’s allegations the work contained manipulated data.
The retracted paper, “Pseudomonas aeruginosa–induced nociceptor activation increases susceptibility to infection,” appeared in 2021 from the lab of Mihaela Gadjeva, an immunologist previously based at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. It has been cited 22 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science.
According to her LinkedIn profile, Gadjeva had been employed at Brigham and Women’s hospital for 16 years until her departure at some point in 2022. Since then, she has been an associate director of bacteriology at Moderna.
The retraction comes after a former postdoc in Gadjeva’s lab reported suspicions about possible data manipulation using photo editing software to the hospital and the journal. We spoke with the postdoc via email, where they shared evidence of their correspondence. They wished to remain anonymous for this story. We also reached out to Gadjeva for comment and got an email from her lawyers, Gelb & Gelb LLP, based in Massachusetts, requesting that we direct any further communication through them. They have not responded to our queries.
The postdoc contacted the editor at PLOS Pathogens in August 2022 with concerns about the article. They alleged some data in figure 5 had been changed to support the claims in the paper.
The retraction notice doesn’t repeat the postdoc’s allegations of manipulation. Instead, it attributes the retraction to “concerns about the reliability of the reported results and conclusions” related to six figures, including figure 5. The authors acknowledged “some data underlying the figures of concern are no longer available,” according to the notice.
The notice also stated the authors told editors they had combined multiple experiments during data preparation and analysis, and noted other factors that may have contributed to errors in the work.
After receiving the postdoc’s report, PLOS launched an investigation into the paper and reassessed the article, identifying additional duplications and errors, David Knutson, the head of communications at PLOS, told Retraction Watch. When we asked whether the journal’s own investigation into the paper addressed the allegations of data manipulation, Knutson responded, “Our publication ethics investigations do not investigate culpability or origin of error.”
To fix the problems, the authors offered updated figures, some original data and repeat data, but the journal’s editorial board concluded the materials “did not resolve the issues,” according to the retraction notice. After the two-year-long process, the paper was retracted this October.
The postdoc had reported the same issues to the hospital’s research integrity office in April 2022, several months before contacting the journal, but told Retraction Watch that they did not receive a response.
When asked if Brigham and Women’s Hospital had looked into the postdoc’s concerns about the paper, a spokesperson for the hospital replied that Gadjeva “is not employed at BWH.” In a follow up email, she added, “We always undertake a robust and confidential process and respond to any claims that are brought to our attention in accordance with hospital policy and federal regulations.”
“We can not comment on the confidential process,” the email continued.
PLOS contacted Brigham and Women’s Hospital to “discuss concerns,” Knutson said. Those discussions “are confidential,” he said.
“Our editorial decision was made independent from the information we received from the institute,” he told us. “PLOS retracted the article because we were unable to resolve the concerns raised in the absence of the underlying data.”
In a separate incident in 2020, the attending veterinarian at Brigham and Women’s Hospital appeared to have suspended Gadjeva’s group from using an animal room — where lab rats are temporarily housed for experimentation — after an inspection found conditions that did not comply with regulations, according to an email describing the inspection report seen by Retraction Watch.
The room where the mice were housed was too cold, and the animals were kept in dirty cages, with little food and water supplies, according to the report. The inspector also found unsealed food, and no records for the animals.
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].
Every place I’ve worked has people that others avoid as coauthors. All institutions fail to weed these people out.
The conditions described in the animal cages would introduce variables into any study. They would have to mimic the bad conditions to replicate the data.
Why are researchers badly witch-hunted for accountability over manipulated results while politicians are not arrested for bad harmful policies?
Ain’t a witch hurt when she actually did it.
The term “witch hunt” implies that someone was inappropriately targeted and persecuted when all that happened was a paper that allegedly contained false data was retracted. That’s one way to maintain quality in the research literature, which is a benefit to all and a good thing.
That one author has been anonymously blamed for the false data and has not explained their side of the story (at this point) is unfortunate, but not uncommon when lawyers get involved.
Accusing politicians of criminal behavior doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what occurred here. There is no crime and no politics in the story.
Are you arguing for researchers to be installed via elections, and those who are found to manipulate results or do poor work to be arrested?
Because of intention: politicians generally believe their policies will work (and are persecuted for corrupt policies) whilst manipulating data is clearly wrong.
If you can understand the fallacy in your argument, you’ll understand why it isn’t really an argument as we are talking about wildly separate populations, one of which is elected and… Welp just look up the term “whataboutism” as why are we arresting people for murder when war is happening across the world?
Politicians are often arrested for fraud, even though it’s difficult to prove, and it seems you feel scientists should be arrested for “problematic” research practices which I think is interesting and would like to hear more about as it’s rare for scientists to be held accountable by the government when they haven’t adhered to grant contracts let alone prosecuted for fraud
From; https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/1835447
“Michaela comes across as very confident in her own abilities. However, from what Ive experienced, Im not really sure of how knowledgeable she is. For instance, she gave us a sample paper of hers as an example of how to write scientifically, but the paper itself was very poorly organised and written in broken English. Overall, useless.”
Maybe this says it all.
Well, thanks for sending this link. I decided to read all the comments about this course. Half of them are excellent, while the other half are terrible, with only a few in between. In a way, this is expected for any “tough” course—such as one in immunology.
However, I’m not sure how this information about the course contributes to the discussion about the article retraction. These topics are NOT linked at all.
Cheers,
Irene
I hope your doctor takes her publications seriously.
According to the article, her name is Mihaela, not Michaela. So, who is correct and who has made a slip-up?
I’ve seen an assertion that industry reports are retracted much less often than those from academia so maybe she’ll do better. (I remain dubious as to whether reports from industry are more reliable.)
This article provides interesting insights into the retraction of a scientific paper, accompanied by a clear statement from the publisher explaining the reasons for the retraction. The discussion includes allegations from an anonymous “former postdoc,” claiming misconduct supported by photographic evidence. However, it is evident that these allegations were not the primary reason for the retraction.
The connection between the postdoc and the allegations remains unclear, as does their involvement in the research during the article’s preparation. Were they part of the original list of authors? Did they have any role in creating the disputed figure, or is it possible they manipulated the evidence to disrupt the principal investigator’s (PI’s) research program? These questions remain unanswered.
At the end of the day, the sequence appears straightforward:
1. The article was published.
2. A post-publication review process concluded it was better to retract the paper rather than accept additional data, as the new evidence “did not resolve the issues.”
However, the motivations and role of the “former postdoc” in this case remain ambiguous. Why do these allegations stay anonymous? What is the driving force behind them?
“is it possible they manipulated the evidence to disrupt the principal investigator’s (PI’s) research program?”
Is this a thing?
Did the postdoc read and approve the paper before submission?