A cardiology researcher who left the University of Iowa with a six-figure settlement earlier this year won’t be starting the new job he’d lined up at the Providence VA Medical Center, Retraction Watch has learned.
Justyn Charon, a spokesperson for the Providence VA, previously told us the researcher, Kaikobad Irani, would begin his new position “around November.” When we followed up, Charon confirmed, “there is currently no plan for Dr. Irani to be employed by VA Providence.”
In the meantime, the University of Iowa in Iowa City has launched an investigation about the leak of a report regarding Irani to Retraction Watch that appears to be an attempt to identify the source of the document.
As we previously reported, administrators at the institution investigated allegations Irani had harassed mentees. That inquiry found, based on a “preponderance of evidence,” Irani had violated the university’s policies on harassment, professional conduct, and use of information technology resources, according to the report.
In response to our request for comment on why he would no longer work at the Providence VA, Irani said:
My VA employment was targeted using an illegally leaked and misleading investigation report into fabricated allegations of harassment. The allegations were made by persons who worked in my lab who I had in good-faith previously reported for serious violations of research integrity. The investigation did not verify the allegations made by those I had reported. After considering the totality of evidence and lack of evidence, University of Iowa authorities did not find I violated its anti-harassment policy. The narrative that my “previous employer found [I] had harassed mentees” and that my “behavior violated university’s policy on harassment” (see Retraction Watch Sept 19, 2024) is false.
Irani, who claims that the University of Iowa provost did not uphold the findings of the investigation, previously told us he had “faced a campaign of retaliation” for reporting one colleague for research misconduct and others for failing to disclose conflicts of interest on grant applications to the National Institutes of Health. The findings of the investigation “are largely based on false unsubstantiated allegations made by persons whom I had earlier reported in good faith,” he said when we contacted him for our earlier story. At that time, he did not dispute the investigation had found he had violated the university’s harassment policy.
After publication of our story on the investigation report, Julian West, an investigator in the Office of Civil Rights Compliance at the University of Iowa, and Todd Rent, the university’s senior director of employee and labor relations, contacted us with questions about the document we had obtained, such as how many pages long it was, and whether and how it was redacted.
Rent said their goal was not to identify our source, but to “determine whether our university’s existing document control procedures are sufficient to maintain an environment where campus community members feel safe raising concerns.”
To avoid providing information that could identify our source, we declined to answer their questions. They, and the University of Iowa media relations office, did not respond to our request for comment on their investigation into our source for the document.
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].
Is there a retraction involved here, or is this a tabloid article?
Tabloid, muckraking article as there apparently isn’t any retraction that would have necessitated this article. Simply dragging the guy’s name through the mud because it makes a good clickbait article.
Irresponsible journalism. Bias of the reporter is plainly evident. Headline says “….settlement to leave University of Iowa……” but leaves out the part that settlement was also not to sue University of Iowa. The headline “…settlement to leave and not sue University of Iowa….” is much more balanced and has a very different tone.
Settlements almost always have such a clause. It’s basically severance for getting fired. Exit the company peacefully, drop all rights to legal remedies from the past, and you can get this pile of cash.
RW does appear to have bias here and seems to be bragging about the impact of their reporting. This is a self-puff piece, which is off-putting.
Biased agenda-driven journalism. Where is the objectivity that a journalist should have? RW has lost all credibility
Great report from RW—truly a professional platform. Keep up the excellent work, RW!
Why is RW not covering the more important aspect of this story where Irani reported “a faculty member working in his lab for “extensively falsifying and fabricating data.” He also reported other researchers to federal authorities for failing to report conflicts of interest on grant applications to the National Institutes of Health.
Shouldn’t the faculty member who potentially fabricated data and lied in grant applications be the subject of RW investigative efforts? Why focus on salacious matters about Irani which have nothing to do with scientific fraud and academic integrity…
You seemed to have missed the “administrators at the institution investigated allegations Irani had harassed mentees.” This has a lot to do with academic integrity.
RW can hardly investigate anything else if it is not clear who Irani supposedly reported. Irani doesn’t want to say, so good luck in finding out.
Irani evidently gave RW specific information about his whistleblowing. See his reply. Now, let’s see if RW does its job as investigative journalist.
According to RW he explicitly did not want to name any names! He also did not provide many other specifics. However, apparently you know more, so please do provide that “specific information” that you claim RW received.
Documents in google drive link in his reply below have specific info. You and I can’t see it because he blacked it out before posting it online
Editors of Retraction Watch are aware of the research integrity violations I reported in good-faith. Retraction Watch was provided verifiable information to help them independently investigate my allegations of these violations. Emails I sent to Retraction Watch with redactions with identifying information that they could verify can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1TleaKVHSVsq4EIgbecg5MF3xn0g6yu3Y?usp=drive_link.
Yet, Retraction Watch showed no interest in investigating data falsification/fabrication, or reporting about it. Nor have they expressed an interest in reporting about the retaliation I faced after I reported these alleged violations of research integrity. Instead, they chose to parrot fabricated and defamatory allegations that have nothing to do with scientific fraud and research integrity, made by the same persons I had reported to federal authorities, without even verifying their truth…
Since you highly value scientific integrity, it may be an appropriate time to address the allegations raised against your published papers on PubPeer.
You continue to claim that the University of Iowa retaliated against you. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that this is true—though I have my doubts. Why, then, did VA Providence decide not to hire you? Are they also retaliating against you?
If your argument is that they relied on the harassment report as a reason not to hire you, why didn’t you provide them with evidence that, according to your claim, the University of Iowa cleared you?
Avoiding negative publicity, not evidence, often drives institutional hiring decisions
Verifiable information based on what? Why not send your claims to the NIH and let them know that the UI is retaliating against you? Anyone can fabricate emails or make accusations. I hope the person you’re accusing becomes aware of this, it would make for a strong defamation lawsuit.
By the same argument, Anyone can also fabricate investigation reports or make harassment accusations. Why don’t you demand proof and authentication of those?
You claimed “the University of Iowa provost did not uphold the findings of the investigation”. Can you at least provide a “redacted” document from the provost to substantiate your claim? Your entire narrative holds no weight without evidence. If the provost did not uphold the investigation outcome, how can you claim that the UI is retaliating against you? Did you bring this up with the provost? There seems to be a missing piece to this story!
There is nothing left out of this story, he is a harasser. No matter how much he tries to bury or distort the facts, it won’t succeed.
Au contraire! Practically everything is left out. For one, the so-called report is left out. Whatever supposed evidence in this report on which the harassment finding is based is left out. Also, the university’s final finding (which is what really matters) as to whether Irani violated its harassment policy, as reported by RW, is left out. This story is in the true tradition of unethical tabloid journalism
MK, do you have any direct evidence?
If he had been cleared by the provost, the VA would not have fired him
Do you know the VA fired him? Did they explicitly say he was fired, terminated, let go for due cause?
And RW’s story holds weight without evidence? Where is RW’s evidence that the university found he had violated its harassment policy? Did RW verify that the provost found he had violated university harassment policy? And why does Irani have to provide any documents from the provost? He is innocent until proven guilty, and the proof is the decision by the final university authority, the provost. The burden of proof is on the university, RW, and you to obtain this proof. Why doesn’t the university provide a document to prove that its provost found Irani violated its harassment policy? The university is being completely non-transparent, and allowing unverified allegations to proliferate. It says a lot about the university.
If the provost, as claimed by Irani, stated that there was no violation of university policies, then why is Irani alleging that the university is retaliating against him? In what way is the university supposedly retaliating against him?
You and others keep pretending there is no report, despite the fact that RW already has it, as even Irani himself has acknowledged. RW acted professionally by verifying the document’s existence and authenticity, confirming that Irani is indeed indicted based on a preponderance of evidence. However, Irani has provided nothing but baseless claims. No institution or court makes judgments based on mere assertions.
In the previous RW article about Irani, they stated “The University of Iowa report, addressed to associate provost for faculty Lois Geist and dated March 24, 2022, describes an investigation by University Human Resources executive Jan Waterhouse and Steven Varga, an associate dean for the university’s Graduate College. Based on a “preponderance of evidence” standard, the investigation found Irani’s behavior violated the university’s policies on harassment, professional conduct and use of information technology resources.”
It is, therefore, Irani’s responsibility to present evidence to support his position—not RW’s. Despite this, RW went above and beyond by reaching out to the UI, effectively trying to do Irani’s job for him. Ultimately, though, the burden of proof lies with Irani. His reliance on verbose claims that lead nowhere explains why he’s in such dire straits.
The suggestion that the University of Iowa would retaliate against a faculty member for transparently reporting research misconduct lacks logic. Universities are obligated to uphold ethical standards and protect individuals who report concerns in good faith. It is even less plausible that the university would offer a settlement for someone to leave if their actions were entirely above reproach.
The fact that Dr. Irani agreed to a settlement and willingly left the University of Iowa strongly implies that his actions may have violated university policies or even the law. In such cases, institutions often seek to resolve matters privately to protect the integrity and reputation of their current employees and operations. This approach is not uncommon and reflects a commitment to confidentiality and professionalism rather than any intention to “cover up” wrongdoing.
Your writing, and many other’s on this topic to be honest, reflects a naivety regarding organizations and their reasoning for settlements.
The settlement is to protect the organization, not the person being paid off. Think of it as hush money. In exchange for a lump sum of cash, you basically sell your right to sue them.
That the university offered such large settlement ($350k!) implies that the university did something wrong, not the other way around. If it was just Irani doing something wrong, there’d be no settlement and he’d simply get fired for cause.
Also, universities routinely act in an unethical manner. To use their ethical obligation as some sort of proof of good behavior is circular reasoning.
Just because you have a legitimate grievance with an organization does not mean it’s something you want to do. These sorts of lawsuits take years, cost a fortune, have indeterminate outcomes, and will sully your reputation (few workplaces want to hire someone with a history of using employers). I’d say that most people would take a six-figure payout rather than go the legal route.
All that being said, here’s my take: Irani did wrong, but the University did as well, perhaps by ignoring his previous reports, or just wanted to avoid bad PR and the idea that they have an unsafe environment, so they settle. Irani is officially cleared (despite investigation results), Irani drops his previous complaints against others, Irani gets payout, Irani leaves quietly.
However, this leaked report is likely an issue for the University, and may be considered a breach by the University of the settlement or a new dispute that Irani can take to court. Perhaps a tort of some sort since the University’s improper handling of private information led to significant monetary and reputational harm, although the hurdle of the report being a real document will make things difficult for Irani. If the University can agree to drop the investigations, it seems bad faith to turn around and release the results of the investigation publicly.
The leaked report is definitely an issue for the university. Publicizing false information that he was found to have violated the university’s policy on harassment will be another issue. The fact that this report was leaked, but any exonerating evidence was not, is further indication that the university has been retaliating, and Irani is truthful when he says this. From all I have seen, Irani appears to have had legitimate grievance against the university that he agreed to drop, but some vengeful university official put university in a precarious legal position by leaking so-called report. Anticipate another 6 or 7 figure settlement
You are wrong Carlos. Ultimately the burden of proof lies with the accuser not the accused. Similarly The burden of proof lies with RW to verify that he indeed was found to have violated university’s policy on harassment before it publishes an article that explicitly says he “violated university’s policy on harassment”. A so-called report that I, you or no one else on this blog has seen, supposedly leaked by God -knows who, is NOT verification. Good journalism means you check and double check before publishing something so inflammatory. RW was lazy and irresponsible to publish a potentially defamatory story based on an unknown source (we don’t even know if it authenticated this source). And btw, I haven’t seen anything from Irani “acknowledging” that he was found to have violated university’s harassment policy. To the contrary, he has disputed it.
In the agreement between Dr. Irani and the University of Iowa, it is explicitly stated that: “The Employee will cause all complaints, proceedings, or other investigations filed or otherwise initiated by the Employee to be withdrawn, and any complaints not withdrawn shall be deemed dismissed as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Employee agrees to cooperate to effectuate all dismissals.”
Based on the email Dr. Irani shared on this platform, it appears that he has violated the terms of this agreement with the University of Iowa. The agreement clearly stipulates that all complaints, investigations, or legal proceedings initiated by him should have been withdrawn, and any unresolved matters should be considered dismissed. However, the email reveals that Dr. Irani continued to pursue allegations against an individual that, according to the university, should have been dismissed. This action directly contradicts the terms of the agreement and represents a breach of contract on Dr. Irani’s part.
Given this violation, the University of Iowa should take legal action against Dr. Irani for failing to adhere to the terms of the agreement. It is crucial that the university holds him accountable for this breach and enforces the agreed-upon conditions. I strongly urge the university to pursue a lawsuit for non-compliance.
Moreover, I believe the individuals who were named or affected by Dr. Irani’s ongoing allegations, as highlighted in the email, should consider suing him for defamation. His actions could potentially damage their reputations and careers. Taking legal action for defamation would not only help protect their personal and professional interests but could also serve as a warning to others about the consequences of disregarding legal agreements and making baseless accusations.
In conclusion, I hope both the University of Iowa and the affected parties take swift action to hold Dr. Irani accountable for his breach of agreement and for any harm caused by his continued allegations. This would set an important precedent in upholding the integrity of contractual agreements and protecting individuals from defamatory actions.
As Justin pointed out above, your argument and that of many others here, shows you have little idea about how universities work, and how the law functions. Read the dates on the agreement and the emails. The emails predate the agreement by many years. Justin is correct, it is not Irani who should be worried about defamation and other torts. It is the university that broke the law and has to be seriously concerned about many legal causes of action.
Based on your illogical reasoning, if the harassment report predates the agreement by many years, then it’s acceptable to release it? That’s absurd. The settlement clearly states that all incidents up to the date of the agreement should be considered resolved. Dr. Irani should brace himself for a significant lawsuit.
David, Matt is accurate. You are also mixing apples and oranges and conflating harassment complaint with other potential complaints in this matter. Irani did not violate terms of agreement by simply releasing a complaint he made against someone 4 years ago. Do you know he didn’t drop this complaint as part of settlement? This is not something any sane attorney would take on at least on contingency basis. Good luck to whoever wants to sue him.
David, you say that Irani filed harassment report. If that’s the case he should be the harassee not the harasser. I think you are very confused. With you as the plaintiff’s lawyer, I don’t think Irani has anything to worry about as defendant.
If Irani is asserting that releasing the harassment report constitutes a violation of the settlement with the university because the report predates the settlement date, then by the same logic, his act of releasing emails accusing others of misconduct also violates the settlement agreement. These emails concern individuals Irani himself had previously complained about, and as per the settlement terms, all complaints from Irani predating the settlement were to be dismissed.
By releasing these emails, Irani has clearly breached the settlement agreement. This violation presents a strong case for the university to pursue legal action against him. Given the circumstances, the university has the potential to secure a significant financial judgment, possibly in the six- or seven-figure range.
The emails in question, which Irani shared through a publicly accessible link, serve as compelling evidence of his breach. This will undoubtedly strengthen the university’s position in any legal proceedings.
You’re off track again. Where is it that you read that he is asserting that unauthorized release of this mysterious investigation report was a breach of the settlement? I don’t see this anywhere. I’ll say it one last time: releasing redacted emails pertaining to a complaint he filed 4 years ago does not legally equate to reviving the complaint. I’m done.
Matt, I couldn’t find any indication that the harassment report shouldn’t be released. Where did you come across that information? 😂 Good luck to him trying to fight this in court—looks like 2025 is shaping up to be a busy year for him with all those legal battles ahead!
Alright, releasing a redacted version of the harassment report related to a complaint filed against Dr. Irani several years ago does not, legally speaking, equate to reviving or reopening the original complaint. Additionally, it’s important to consider that the Provost may have found no grounds for misconduct and decided to dismiss the cases Dr. Irani filed against the scientists four years ago.
David I am sure it will be a busy year for him. I bet he’s looking forward to suing the university and others for their tortious actions
David, your argument is spot on. As for Matt, Ming, and others pretending to be “experts” in organizational settlements and legal matters, their approach is deeply concerning. While you and others, like Scotus and Mat, rely on logic and evidence, these individuals use vague phrases such as “From all I have seen…”, “Irani appears…”, or “the university broke the law.”
I sincerely hope none of them are part of any university investigation committees; their speculative and baseless reasoning could potentially ruin lives. Irani himself needs to abandon his verbose claims and step forward with concrete evidence—even if it’s redacted. Instead, he seems content relying on a chorus of “electronic flies” parroting unfounded speculations. This approach is not only unproductive but also detrimental to his credibility.
VA does extensive background checks for all new hires, particularly anyone with clinical credentials. One of the questions is “have you resigned or left previous employment under threat of dismissal”. If, for example, Dr Irani didn’t disclose the events in Iowa during his application for employment with VA and they subsequently came to light that would almost certainly result in VA deciding not to pursue and employment relationship with him.
Where is the evidence that “he left previous employment under threat of dismissal”? I can find none. He got paid six figure amount by employer which means employer was under threat of something.
Universities often settle with tenured faculty to avoid the cost and time involved in protracted litigation not because they are “threatened”. Faculty who have misbehaved are often motivated to settle to avoid the risk and cost of a lawsuit against a vast institution with unlimited resources and because the courts are generally very supportive of Universities rights to protect their students/trainees and employees from “harassment”, discrimination and any other unwanted/unwelcome behaviors. In this case a third of the settlement went to Dr Irani’s lawyers so the actual net amount received was about $200K. Dr Irani had university income that was reported to be $170K and he will have had separate income from the VA as a 5/8 cardiologist that would have been in the range of $200K. So he gave up a very good job with the Iowa VA and a tenured faculty position at the University all for a net sum of ~$200K. As a result of this it appears as though Dr Irani’s prospects for continuing his career in academic medicine with university and/or VA appointments have been severely compromised. This doesn’t seem like something someone who was confident about prevailing in a lawsuit against the University would do.
LOL, Scotus. The guy is a cardiologist. He can make twice as much as VA or university pay him working half the time. The VA is in dire need of cardiologists and other doctors. In the end, veterans will suffer.
https://www.legion.org/information-center/news/newsletters/2024/august/severe-shortages-of-doctors-and-nurses-have-persisted-for-a-decade-at-va-facilities-report-finds
Despite being in dire need of physicians, they still made the decision to not hire him. This action, taken under such pressing circumstances, is a powerful statement in itself. It reflects not only the severity of whatever issues may have been present but also suggests that his actions, behavior, or performance left no alternative, even in a situation where retaining every available professional would seem essential. It says a great deal about the kind of individual he must be, for such a decision to be made despite the clear demand for his expertise
Mat, looks like you have a personal ax to grind. But remember, You, I or no one else commenting on this blog have any clue about the true circumstances and facts – what happened, what didn’t, why decisions were made, did all the facts come to light, and much more. Until then, we all should be careful drawing conclusions and assassinating someone’s character.
The rate of pay at VA is comparable to the private sector, he’s not an interventional cardiologist so yes he could probably earn $350-400K but he would have to work hard which is a lot different than what he was doing part time at the Iowa VA which likely involved reading echos and doing a clinic once a week. But he wanted to be in academic medicine and that is all he has done since residency/fellowship but he gave that all up for $200k. Or perhaps he is going to retire.
It seems Irani is now investigating who leaked the documents while continuing to mislead others by claiming the allegations are fabricated. However, the report by the UI clearly indicates that the accusations against Irani were made based on a “preponderance of evidence”. Interestingly, Irani also claimed that the provost did not uphold its own University’s investigation findings. Perhaps RW should reach out to the provost for clarification on their stance.
In the previous RW article about him, the mention of his potential hiring by the VA seemed to portray him as an honest individual, suggesting that only the UI was retaliating against him. For this reason, I disagree with many of the comments claiming this article is unimportant. It serves as a crucial follow-up to the previous piece, revealing that he was ultimately not hired by the VA either. If his evidence was so strong, why didn’t he present it to the VA? Is the VA biased too? This situation could make for a compelling lawsuit for Irani.
Additionally, Irani sent RW some redacted emails. How can we be sure they aren’t fabricated or part of his harassment scheme for which the UI found him guilty? Why didn’t the UI, the VA, the journals, or even the NIH reach the same conclusion as him? Are they all conspiring against him too?
A comment also mentioned Irani PubPeer, highlighting an alarming amount of potentially falsified data. It’s definitely something the UI and the publishing journals should investigate.
A verbose rambling comment with zero evidence to back up the innuendos and accusations you make. Where are these so-called “conclusions” by the NIH and “journals” you are referring to? I can find no mention of them in the RW article or anywhere else.
Jose, please maintain a professional demeanor and avoid letting emotions take over. Several points have been addressed, yet your response comes across as dismissive or manipulative.
I don’t understand why the UI isn’t being transparent about this matter. At the very least, they should address what happened to provide clarity for everyone (including both of us). Let’s hope that happens.
I apologize Carlos for my tone. It is important, however, to back up your claims with evidence or point readers to the evidence. We agree on one thing, there is very little transparency, especially from university side. Irani has at least shared some documents that RW can try and authenticate. He may have a lot more but can’t make public because of restrictions placed on him or law.
I think the University has been transparent, essentially by omission. Dr Irani’s “statement” mentions an ORI mandated investigation by The University that clearly has not yet resulted in a public finding of research misconduct. He mentions a “reprimand” from CSR (presumably NIH Center for Scientific Review)- I have no idea what that would involve but this has not yet resulted in publicly disclosed sanctions for actionable research misconduct. Dr Irani says that an NIH grant was “terminated early”, again this could be for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with research misconduct. The most parsimonious interpretation of the available information is that Dr Irani’s concerns were properly investigated and have not resulted in findings of research misconduct. I am wondering if the “restrictions placed by law” on Dr Irani are personal liabilities associated with making repeated accusations of research misconduct that have already been investigated and resolved.
a Tabloid piece!
Perhaps a follow up story will resolve all the questions.
Good job VA. Who wants to hire a harrasser?
Perhaps instead of spending his time reporting others, he should focus on addressing the serious allegations against him on pubpeer
Potus, with all due respect, your statement contradicts itself in a rather absurd way. On one hand, you are urging everyone not to jump to conclusions due to the lack of concrete facts or evidence. Yet, on the other hand, you have done exactly that by accusing me of having a personal vendetta or an ulterior motive.
The facts, however, speak for themselves:
1. The university’s findings: The evidence, based on the preponderance of facts gathered by the university, confirms that Irani is a harasser.
2. Scientific integrity issues: His credibility as a scientist has been called into question due to critical comments on PubPeer. Furthermore, his refusal to address these critiques only deepens doubts about his work.
3. Professional rejection: His inability to secure a position with the VA further supports the concerns regarding his qualifications and character.
These are not assumptions or baseless accusations; they are well-documented realities. It is essential to address these points objectively rather than dismiss them as personal grievances
With all due respect, your information is all second hand. You are drawing conclusions based on RW’s reporting, and making your own assumptions. Do you have any hard evidence in your own hands? Have you seen the “facts” gathered by the university or is it based on RW ‘s story? Do you know he doesn’t have a VA position or are you taking RW’s word for it? Do you know that he falsified data based on the comments on PubPeer or could they be honest mistakes, like many such instances are? Wait to see the evidence yourself, or dig it up yourself, and not simply believe a tabloid news story.
This will be my final reply to you, as I do not have time to waste on this back-and-forth.
1. Retraction Watch (RW) is a professional platform that does not publish anything without thoroughly reviewing first-hand evidence. I trust their credibility and the validity of their reports.
2. As a scientist myself, it is evident that the comments on PubPeer regarding Irani’s work are far from being honest mistakes.
3. As for how I know he doesn’t have a VA position, the VA spokesperson explicitly stated this. If you missed it, I suggest you re-read the article carefully.
Now, using your own line of reasoning:
1. How do we know that Irani is not fabricating evidence? Have you seen it first-hand?
2. How do we know that he hasn’t tampered with the evidence to ruin someone’s career? Do you have proof that he didn’t?
3. How do we know that Irani didn’t report the scientists at Iowa out of bad faith or retaliation by fabricating evidence? Can you provide evidence to the contrary?
4. Furthermore, if the issues raised on PubPeer were truly honest mistakes, Irani would have responded a long time ago and demonstrated that they were indeed unintentional. His continued silence only raises further doubts about his integrity.
5. Finally, perhaps what Irani reported as misconduct was itself an honest mistake. The same logic you apply to others must also apply to him.
Here are the comments on his article. Do you really believe these peccadilloes are data falsification? Absurd!
https://pubpeer.com/publications/114F4069F4C220BD4DBE7A75D7C628
Using incorrect statistics to manipulate data outcomes is a serious form of research misconduct. When the proper statistical methods are applied, it becomes clear that the paper’s hypothesis no longer holds. A basic understanding of statistics, such as what is taught in an introductory stats course, would have prevented this issue.
Why did you disregard the comments on his ATVB paper?
I do strongly believe that the data are falsified due to stats issue plus sample size of 1 and 2 plus using non specific antibodies.
23 valid and legitimate comments so far. wow. How is this paper still not retracted?
The data should be reported to AHA and Nature for a detailed investigation of this paper. Unless there is a formal statement from the editor in chief confirming that the paper is valid, it should be placed under expression of concern.
Additionally, there are numerous discrepancies between the figure legends and the figures themselves throughout the paper. This warrants an inmediate correction
Thid paper has been incredibly enlightening. It showed me that you can use a t-test not just for comparing two groups, but for four groups as well—who needs one-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons, right? It also brilliantly demonstrated that you can analyze multiple groups over time using t-tests instead of the tedious two-way ANOVA.
But that’s not all! It taught me the art of duplicating and triplicating the same sample and presenting them as entirely separate experiments. Genius! I also learned that a sample size of one is perfectly adequate for statistical analysis. And, best of all, it taught me that sample size is just a suggestion—you can report whatever you like in the figure legend. Truly groundbreaking methodology!
His ATVB paper showed us how to crop the same image and present it as if it is coming from 2 different conditions. It also showed us how to use the same blot and present it as if it coming from different conditions.
By the way, does anyone know if he lost his VA grant? This is crucial information, and I hope Retraction Watch will investigate further.
I agree, RW should investigate more about his VA grant.
Dr Irani has to be employed by VA to receive funding- unlike NIH grants the PI salary of these VA grants is paid separately from the research funding. Also, under most circumstances the research has to be performed in VA facilities. So, if he doesn’t have a VA appointment then he won’t be able to continue to receive funding. VA also has its own procedure to investigate allegations of misconduct in grant proposals or publications that were supported by VA funding. The process is slow but thorough.
I encourage everyone to review his Nature Communications paper published in 2023. Please examine the original data he provided, compare it with the figures in the paper, and take a look at the comments on PubPeer. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37696839/
Also, check his 2 ATVB papers published in 2016 and 2003. Compare the figure to the comments on pubpeer and let us know.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27789474/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12524240/
Irani mentioned that the university retaliated against him. Did he provide any evidence to support this claim? Additionally, how exactly did the university retaliate against him, according to his account?
When you carefully examine Irani’s PubPeer, you’ll likely be surprised. As a scientist, I found that nearly every comment there carries substantial weight. I hope that the UI or the journals themselves will take a closer look into these concerns. However, taking a broader perspective on the situation, it appears there may be more to the story than Irani’s claims suggest. It seems that Irani himself is the one accused of misconduct, with someone reporting him, potentially leading to his dismissal by the university. Because of this, as a PI and tenured faculty member, he reportedly harassed the individual who reported him. This led to a university investigation, which found him guilty based on a preponderance of evidence. His efforts to implicate others appear unfounded. Furthermore, there seems to be evidence of misconduct in nearly every figure, even in the statistical approaches used in some of his papers, raising significant questions about his integrity.