Category: basic life sciences retractions

ORI rules in longstanding University of Washington misconduct case

andrew_aprikyan
Andrew Aprikyan

A case of alleged misconduct at the University of Washington in Seattle may finally be over. The Office of Research Integrity released its findings following an investigation into the work of Andrew Aprikyan, a former hematology researcher at the university.

The Aprikyan case has dragged on for a decade. In 2010, the university fired the scientist after a court denied his appeals based on allegations that they had denied him due process. As the Seattle Times reported at the time:  Continue reading ORI rules in longstanding University of Washington misconduct case

Second retraction appears for University of Wisconsin neuroscientist who faked images

brain researchA University of Wisconsin scientist who was found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have faked data in two papers, has had a second study retracted.

Here’s the notice: for “Secretory phospholipase A2 IIA is up-regulated by TNF-α and IL-1α/β after transient focal cerebral ischemia in rat,” by Rao Adibhatla and colleagues and originally published in Brain Research in February 2007: Continue reading Second retraction appears for University of Wisconsin neuroscientist who faked images

“Unsolved legal reasons” cause retraction of two biophysics papers

eur biophys jEvery now and then, we see retraction notices that refer vaguely to legal issues. Sometimes, we can dig up the actual reason. But the European Biophysics Journal has two retractions that leave us completely in the dark.

The two notices basically say the same thing. Here’s one: Continue reading “Unsolved legal reasons” cause retraction of two biophysics papers

Kenji Okajima retraction count grows to five

Kenji Okajima
Kenji Okajima

We’ve been following the case of Kenji Okajima, a professor at Nagoya City University in Japan who was suspended for six months following an investigation into work in his lab. Bits of the story — including at least one other university investigation, and scrutiny of Okajima’s colleagues, one of whom was fired — have been dribbling out for almost two years since a retraction notice in the Journal of Neuroscience.

In all, it looks as Nagoya found evidence of misconduct in 19 papers. The Journal of Neuroscience retraction appeared in 2011, and another showed up in the Journal of Immunology last year. Now there are three more: One in Translational Research and two in Blood.

Here’s the notice from Translational Research: Continue reading Kenji Okajima retraction count grows to five

Geneticists take HeLa sequence off-line after Lacks family notes they hadn’t given consent

g3HeLa — the cell line that has apparently taken over any number of others commonly used in science, suggesting that many researchers may not have been studying what they thought they were studying — is back in the news. This weekend, it was the DNA sequence of the cells that’s made headlines, with a quiet unpublishing of data.

As Rebecca Skloot, author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks — Lacks’s name is where “HeLa” comes from, as they’re her cells — wrote in the New York Times Sunday, a group of researchers at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory published an analysis of the HeLa cells’ genome on March 11 in G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, a new journal from the Genetics Society of America.

That genome, of course, could be very useful in research, given how widely used HeLa cells are. But the problem was Continue reading Geneticists take HeLa sequence off-line after Lacks family notes they hadn’t given consent

Seals of disapproval, as pinniped paper gets yanked for plagiarism

ImageJoseph Hoffman, an animal behavior researcher at the University of Bielefeld in Germany says he got a “kind of odd” feeling as he read a recent paper on the transcriptome of the spotted seal. Let’s just call it deja vu.

The article, “Characterization of the spotted seal Phoca largha transcriptome using Illumina paired-end sequencing and development of SSR markers,” which appeared in Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part D: Genomics and Proteomics:

Continue reading Seals of disapproval, as pinniped paper gets yanked for plagiarism

Charge of “scientific yellow journalism” has supervisor seeing red, leads to retraction

small gtpasesLast October, Anica Klockars, a neuroscience researcher at Uppsala University in Sweden, and a colleague published a controversial comment in the journal Small GTPases, a Landes Bioscience title.

The title of the letter was meant to provoke: “Scientific yellow journalism.”

As the authors wrote: Continue reading Charge of “scientific yellow journalism” has supervisor seeing red, leads to retraction

U Wisconsin neuroscientist who faked images has first paper retracted

jbc315Rao Adibhatla, a University of Wisconsin scientist who was found by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to have faked data in two papers, has had one of those studies retracted.

Here’s the notice for “CDP-choline significantly restores phosphatidylcholine levels by differentially affecting phospholipase A2 and CTP: phosphocholine cytidylyltransferase after stroke,” by Adibhatla and a number of colleagues in the Journal of Biological Chemistry (JBC): Continue reading U Wisconsin neuroscientist who faked images has first paper retracted

“Redundant in principle”: Blood retracts paper built on double-dipping of data by co-author

blood coverBlood has retracted a 2012 paper by a pair of Swedish authors, one of whom appears to have misappropriated data from his mentor.

The article, titled “Microparticles are the basic storage units for different proteins in platelet granules,” appeared online in July 2012 and was written by Chi Zhang and Yang Yang, of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

But as the retraction notice explains, there was a problem:

Continue reading “Redundant in principle”: Blood retracts paper built on double-dipping of data by co-author

Paper with “missing or placed wrongly” controls retracted because there’s “no editorial mechanism to review the errors”

jgvTwo researchers from Singapore are retracting a paper that included errors in three figures because there’s apparently no way to fix the mistakes and have the new work reviewed.

Here’s the notice for “Host-dependent effects of the 3′ untranslated region of turnip crinkle virus RNA on accumulation in Hibiscus and Arabidopsis,” by Weimin Li and Sek-Man Wong of National University of Singapore and Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory: Continue reading Paper with “missing or placed wrongly” controls retracted because there’s “no editorial mechanism to review the errors”