Carlo Croce, a prolific cancer researcher at The Ohio State University (OSU) in Columbus who was the subject of a 2017 front page story in The New York Times about allegations of misconduct against him, has lost a libel suit that he filed against the newspaper.
As first reported by Courthouse News Service earlier this week, the Sixth Circuit upheld a lower court’s November 2018 ruling tossing most of Croce’s claims. In the ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Moore writes:
The article at issue may be unflattering, but the question is whether it is defamatory. In a thorough opinion, the district court thought not. We agree. The article is a standard piece of investigative journalism that presents newsworthy allegations made by others, with appropriate qualifying language.
Moore writes elsewhere:
Although the article notes instances of corrections to Dr. Croce’s articles due to, for example, errors in data, those statements are true. Dr. Croce attempts to cut and paste together the worst portions of sentences, unmooring them from their full context, in order to support his claim that the article is defamatory. In its full and proper context, however, the article reports newsworthy allegations with appropriate qualifying language.
We emailed Croce’s attorney, James Arnold, to ask if we could call him for comment, or email him questions. He had a one-word answer: “No.”
The case against the Times was not the only one Croce had filed in recent years. Arnold is also representing Croce in a suit against his employer, OSU, that seeks his reinstatement as department chair. He is also suing David Sanders, a scientist who is quoted in the Times story.
Croce has had nine papers retracted, three subjected to expressions of concern, and 17 corrected.
‘Still, scientists need to be held accountable like anyone else’
James Glanz, one of the reporters who wrote the Times story, responded to questions we sent him by email:
Retraction Watch (RW): Were you ever concerned that the decision might go the other way?
James Glanz (JG): I have to be frank and say I never thought there was much of a chance we would lose. I had confidence in the article, the judicial system, and the Times legal team, which is incredibly good.
RW: Do you have any regrets about the way the story was done?
JG: No. The story is as balanced and deeply reported as any I’ve done. I’d like to credit my co-author, Augie Armendariz, for helping make it that way.
RW: What message do you think this sends to scientists whose work comes under scrutiny? What about to journalists who cover it?
JG: Look, I’m a former scientist – a plasma physicist. I love science, and I love scientists, for the most part. Still, scientists need to be held accountable like anyone else. As for journalists who cover science, I’d counsel approaching it as aggressively as any other beat. If you’re ginning up gee-whiz stories from embargoed press releases about technical breakthroughs, you’re missing the point. If you dig, you’ll be rewarded with great stories that say a lot more about what science is, and what it isn’t.
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, sign up for an email every time there’s a new post (look for the “follow” button at the lower right part of your screen), 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].
Hear! hear! A refreshing take from JG, especially “Still, scientists need to be held accountable like anyone else. … If you’re ginning up gee-whiz stories from embargoed press releases about technical breakthroughs, you’re missing the point.”
I can’t help but notice that, in many scientific circles including in my own academic institution, there is stubborn attitude that “one shan’t question or criticize an esteemed gentle-person-scholar,” which is basically the argument that CC is making in his failed court case. This attitude is deeply antithetical to science, and we need more people that think and act like JG.
2020 retraction for Carlo Croce of Front Oncol. 2013 Jun 13;3:153 because “improper reuse of text from previous articles”
Front Oncol. 2013 Jun 13;3:153. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00153. eCollection 2013.The Role of microRNAs in the Tumorigenesis of Ovarian Cancer.Di Leva G1, Croce CM.Author information1Department of Molecular Virology, Immunology, and Medical Genetics, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University Columbus, OH, USA.
2020 retraction.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2020.00585/full
Retraction: The role of microRNAs in the tumorigenesis of ovarian cancer
Frontiers Editorial Office*
A Retraction of the Review Article
The role of microRNAs in the tumorigenesis of ovarian cancer
by Di Leva, G., and Croce, C. M. (2013). Front. Oncol. 3:153. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00153
The journal retracts the June 13, 2013 article cited above.
Following publication, the authors contacted the Editorial Office to request that their article be corrected because of the inappropriate manner in which the article was written, which specifically involved improper reuse of text from previous articles. An investigation was conducted in accordance with our established procedures that confirmed the extensive and dispersed nature of the overlap; therefore, the article has been retracted.
This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Oncology and the Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction.
28 February 2024 Editorial Expression of Concern.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41388-024-02989-3
Editorial Expression of Concern
Published: 28 February 2024
Editorial Expression of Concern: MicroRNA signatures of TRAIL resistance in human non-small cell lung cancer
M. Garofalo, C. Quintavalle, G. Di Leva, C. Zanca, G. Romano, C. Taccioli, C. G. Liu, C. M. Croce & G. Condorelli Show fewer authors
Oncogene (2024)
Editorial Expression of Concern to: Oncogene https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2008.6, published online 04 February 2008
The Editors-in-Chief would like to alert the readers that following the Correction [1] of this article [2] to address the concerns raised regarding the western blot loading controls presented in Figs. 4c and 7a, further issues have been noted:
The western blot loading controls presented in Figs. 4d and 7c appear highly similar.
The U6 panel of Fig. 3b appears highly similar to the U6 panel of Fig. 4c of another article from the same author group that was submitted and published within a similar time frame [3].
The western blot loading controls presented in Fig. 5b and the originally published version of Fig. 7a appear highly similar to the control lanes 1 and 2 (flipped horizontally) of Fig. 3a of [4], which as also submitted and published within a similar time frame.
The authors have stated that the images used in the other articles [3, 4] are incorrect, and are issuing Corrections to replace them with the appropriate data. However, due to the number of concerns raised, readers are advised to interpret the presented data with caution.
M. Garofalo has stated on behalf of all authors that they do not agree to this editorial expression of concern.
References
Garofalo M, Quintavalle C, Di Leva G, Zanca C, Romano G, Taccioli C, et al. Correction: MicroRNA signatures of TRAIL resistance in human non-small cell lung cancer. Oncogene. 2021;40:1204–1204. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-020-01608-1