In a shocking revelation, the esteemed Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, affiliated with Harvard Medical School, has acknowledged the necessity for retractions or corrections in dozens of research papers authored by its top scientists. The institute's internal investigation was prompted by allegations from an independent data investigator, who claimed the papers were "hopelessly corrupt with errors."
Biologist Sholto David, in a recent post on the For Better Science blog dated January 2nd, highlighted 57 papers co-authored between 1997 and 2017 by Dana-Farber Cancer Institute President and CEO Laurie Glimcher, Chief Operating Officer William Hahn, Senior Vice President Irene Ghobrial, and Center Director Kenneth Anderson. The affected papers, delving into the fundamental biology of cancer development, were published in prestigious journals including Cell, Nature Medicine, and Science.
The identified errors, brought to light by David, range from duplicated images of protein blots, bands, and data graphs within the same paper. The severity of these discrepancies raises questions about the possibility of intentional misconduct. However, David refrains from explicitly stating whether these findings constitute evidence of research misconduct.
Acknowledging the gravity of the situation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has formally requested retractions for six papers and corrections for 31 others where the institute's authors bear primary responsibility for potential data errors. Barrett Rollins, the institute's research integrity officer, emphasized that an additional 16 papers, incorporating data from the labs of other DFCI and Harvard researchers, are still under investigation. Notably, three of the questioned papers show no "data anomalies."
Rollins anticipates that the investigation may span up to a year but refrains from confirming whether the identified errors amount to scientific misconduct. He asserts, "The presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author's intent to deceive," emphasizing the need for a thorough, fact-based examination before drawing conclusions about misconduct. The institute aims to uphold research integrity and address unintentional errors that may not necessarily imply misconduct in the scientific community.
