Author: Ivan Oransky

Does scientific misconduct cause patient harm? The case of Joachim Boldt

jamaIf you wanted to minimize the real-life effects of misconduct, you might note that some of the retractions we cover are in tiny obscure journals hardly anyone reads. But a new meta-analysis and editorial in JAMA today suggests — as a study by Grant Steen did a few years ago — that the risk of patient harm due to scientific misconduct is not just theoretical.

As the editorialists note, hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are “synthetic fluid products used commonly in clinical practice worldwide:”

Synthetic colloids received market approval in the 1960s without evaluation of their efficacy and safety in large phase 3 clinical trials. Subsequent studies reported mixed evidence on their benefits and harms.

There has been controversy over the use of HES for decades, with the most recent high-level review showing “no significant mortality increase.” But one of the reasons for that review — by the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration — was to see if the dozens of now-retracted studies by Joachim Boldt Continue reading Does scientific misconduct cause patient harm? The case of Joachim Boldt

Neuroscientist found to have faked grant applications loses gig as grant services consultant

Michael-Miller-294-232x300
Michael Miller

Would you hire someone found to have faked data on federal grant applications as a “grant services consultant?”

You may have been without knowing it, if you had gone to Washington, D.C.-based Strategic Health Care for help with your grants. There, you would have found Michael Miller — page removed today, more on that in a moment — whose bio described him as an “internationally known neuroscientist.”

He has more than 30 years of experience in obtaining federal support for his research and that of collaborators. This includes individual grants (R01′s and R03′s) and fellowships for himself and pre- and post-doctoral trainees from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), merit reviews and research career awards from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and support from private foundations. In addition, Dr. Miller successfully orchestrated and competed for a $9 million NIH center (P50) grant that coordinated research at five different institutions.

What Miller’s bio failed to mention Continue reading Neuroscientist found to have faked grant applications loses gig as grant services consultant

Pig cloning paper retracted for being a clone

animalOnce again, the headline has written itself.

The journal Animal has retracted a 2010 paper on cloning pig embryos after it became clear that there were “close similarities” between it and a 2009 paper by some of the same authors. Here’s the notice:
Continue reading Pig cloning paper retracted for being a clone

Paper linking cell phones during pregnancy to behavior problems in mice corrected

scientificreportsThe authors of a study published last year looking at the effects of cell phone exposure on mice in utero have corrected a figure after it was questioned. New experiments, they write, confirm the original conclusions they drew from the figure.

Here’s the corrected figure from the paper in Scientific Reports, published by Nature Publishing Group: Continue reading Paper linking cell phones during pregnancy to behavior problems in mice corrected

Facebook study retracted after authors request substantial changes

cyberpsychThe journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking is retracting a paper about Facebook.

“Bridging the Gap on Facebook: Assessing Intergroup Contact and Its Effects for Intergroup Relations,” is by Sandy Schumann of the Free University of Brussels. The notice says only:

This article has been officially retracted from the Journal.

We asked journal editor Brenda K. Wiederhold for more information about the retraction, and she responded: Continue reading Facebook study retracted after authors request substantial changes

Anil Potti tells Retraction Watch he wasn’t behind DMCA takedown notices of posts about him

pottiWe have an update on an evolving and puzzling story involving our posts about Anil Potti that have been temporarily removed from Retraction Watch.

Someone claiming to be Anil Potti — and whom we have good reason to believe is actually him, for reasons we’ll get into — emailed us tonight to say that he had “no part whatsoever” in the takedown of Retraction Watch posts about him: Continue reading Anil Potti tells Retraction Watch he wasn’t behind DMCA takedown notices of posts about him

Another site hit with DMCA takedown notice for post about Anil Potti

nanopolitanRetraction Watch readers may recall that earlier this month, WordPress removed ten of our posts about Anil Potti — the former Duke oncology researcher who has retracted or corrected 19 papers — after a false DMCA copyright claim against us. The site which claimed the copyright violations — and which no longer exists — actually plagiarized our posts, not the other way around.

We’re still waiting for those posts to be reinstated; our understanding is that they’ll be back later this week. In the meantime, Nanopolitan, another site that wrote about Potti has been hit with what looks like a false DMCA claim.

Blogger, Nanopolitan’s host, has taken down one post. One of the owners of Nanopolitan, Abi, writes: Continue reading Another site hit with DMCA takedown notice for post about Anil Potti

MIT lab retracts Cell synapse tagging paper for falsification or fabrication

cell feb 2013A rising star at MIT has retracted a paper after an investigation found that her former postdoc had “falsified or fabricated figures.”

Alice Ting, winner of an NIH Directors Pioneer Award and named one of Technology Review’s “Innovators Under 35,” published the paper, “Imaging Activity-Dependent Regulation of Neurexin-Neuroligin Interactions Using trans-Synaptic Enzymatic Biotinylation,” in Cell in 2010 along with Amar Thyagarajan.

The notice is refreshingly detailed given the circumstances: Continue reading MIT lab retracts Cell synapse tagging paper for falsification or fabrication

Not in my journal: Two editors take stock of misconduct in their fields — and don’t find much

biol conservToday brings two journal editorials about misconduct and retractions. They take, if we may, a bit of an optimistic and perhaps even blindered approach.

In an editorial titled “Scientific misconduct occurs, but is rare,” Boston University’s Richard Primack, editor of Biological Conservation, highlights a Corrigendum of a paper by Jesus Angel Lemus, the veterinary researcher who has retracted seven papers: Continue reading Not in my journal: Two editors take stock of misconduct in their fields — and don’t find much

Duplication forces retractions of two 15-year-old entomology papers

jtbA Brazilian entomologist, Claudio Jose von Zuben, has been forced to retract two papers from 1997 after editors became aware that he and his colleagues had used the same figure in both.

First, the notice from Memórias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz: Continue reading Duplication forces retractions of two 15-year-old entomology papers