Cancer specialist faked data in at least ten papers, VA and UCLA find

Alan Lichtenstein

A multiple myeloma specialist “recklessly“ falsified data in at least 10 published articles, according to a joint investigation by the University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine and Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. 

The institutions found Alan Lichtenstein, a former staff physician at the VA, committed research misconduct by reusing images “to falsely represent the results” related to 26 pairs of experiments, according to a notice published in the Federal Register. 

At least one of the sets of images in each of the pairs “is inaccurate,” the notice stated. The institutions found Lichtenstein had falsified data in “at least ten” of the 13 articles in which the images appeared, perhaps because the investigators could not determine which images, if any, were original. 

Lichtenstein has received more than $10 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health, and was also previously a professor of medicine in residence at UCLA Medical School, according to an online biosketch. He did not respond to our request for comment sent to his VA email address, which did not bounce. 

The VA banned Lichtenstein from conducting research for the department for at least two years, and called for notifying the journals where the tainted articles appeared of the misconduct findings. 

Lichtenstein did not appeal the findings or corrective actions, according to the Federal Register notice. 

The reused images appeared in the following 13 published papers dating back to 2003, three of which have been retracted:

PubPeer users posted comments identifying similarities between images in a few of Lichtenstein’s papers beginning in April 2020

Three years later, in April of 2023, scientific sleuth Kevin Patrick found similarities in images in another paper, which he reported on PubPeer, as well as to the journal, the VA, and UCLA.  He went on to identify many more similarities in additional papers

Given the scale of the findings, “if the only penalty was a 2 year suspension, this does not sound severe enough to serve as a deterrent for people considering bad research practices,“ Patrick said. 

Three papers have been retracted so far, but Patrick thinks other concerns that he flagged are ”hard to explain as an accident” and ”should probably lead the journals to retract the paper.” As an example, he cited the 2012 Journal of Biological Chemistry paper in the VA’s findings. 

The pair of retractions in PLOS ONE both appeared on Sept. 8, 2023, and list image similarities identified on PubPeer. The authors could not provide original data for either article, the notices state, so the editors decided to retract the articles. Lichtenstein was one of the authors who “either did not respond directly or could not be reached,” the notices stated, despite being the corresponding author of one of the papers. 

The retraction notice to the 2016 Oncogene article, dated Aug. 31, 2023, lists all the concerns called out on PubPeer a few months prior, even using some of the same language. The authors were unable to provide raw data, according to the notice, and the journal’s editors “no longer have confidence in the integrity of the data in this article.” Lichtenstein did not respond to correspondence about the retraction, the notice stated.

A press release from UCLA on the publication of the 2016 Oncogene article claimed the scientists had discovered a “first-of-its-kind experimental treatment” for multiple myeloma. The release quoted Lichtenstein: “Though this research is only in the preliminary phases, we hope that it will eventually lead to human clinical trials and the development of new treatments for this devastating disease.”

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].

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.