Chemistry paper retracted from Science

Science has retracted a 2020 paper which hinted at the future of eco-friendly pharmaceuticals after concluding that the data had been manipulated. 

The article, “Asymmetric remote C–H borylation of aliphatic amides and esters with a modular iridium catalyst,” came from a team anchored by Masaya Sawamura, of Hokkaido University, in Sapporo.

Funding for the study – which has been cited 57 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science – came from the Japanese government and the Uehara Memorial Foundation. Hokkaido is now investigating, Science said. 

[Please see an update on this post.]

The paper received some attention, including this article in Chemistry & Engineering News which described the results this way: 

Sawamura and coworkers found that the catalyst assembles to form a pocket, akin to an enzyme active site, that binds the compound through multiple noncovalent interactions. These include π-π interactions between a monophosphite ligand and a urea-pyridine receptor ligand, coordination of the pyridine to the Ir center, and hydrogen bonding between the substrate and the urea ligand. The modularity of the catalyst is “reminiscent of a machine built by piecing together individual parts,” Sawamura says. It should also enable flexibility in changing the parts of the catalyst to potentially expand reactivity.

Starting with aliphatic secondary and tertiary amides and esters, the researchers made a series of borylated compounds. These could then be transformed into pharmacologically important compounds, including a derivative of the neurotransmitter GABA.

But those green dreams have faded. Per the retraction notice: 

The authors of the 2020 Science Report “Asymmetric remote C–H borylation of aliphatic amides and esters with a modular iridium catalyst” are retracting their paper after discovering that the reported enantioselective gamma-selective C–H borylation of N,N-dibenzylhexamide is not reproducible and that many of the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectra were manipulated. “These issues undermine our confidence in the integrity of the study as a whole,” they write. “We regret any confusion and apologize to the scientific community.” All authors have agreed to retract this report and an institutional investigation of misconduct is underway.

Sawamura did not respond to a request for comment. 

Holden Thorp, the editor-in-chief of Science, told us: 

We heard from the PI that they wanted to retract. Hadn’t heard about problems before that. We deeply appreciate and commend their forthrightness.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal 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].