Nature Chemical Biology on retractions and their communication
The retraction of a Nature Chemical Biology paper is a step toward a full accounting of a case of scientific misconduct, as described in the journal's July editorial (4, 381; 2008).The paper is by Won et al., "Small molecule–based reversible reprogramming of cellular lifespan" (Nat. Chem. Biol. 2, 369–374, 2006). The editorial describes the process by which the paper was considered and the process by which the problems came to light, first involving undeclared financial interests, then, some time later, lack of reproducibility of the data. From the editorial:
As stated in the retraction text, all nine of the paper's authors have agreed that the paper must be retracted. However, Tae Kook Kim, the principal investigator and corresponding author, did not agree to the retraction statement signed by the other authors and asserts that any scientific irregularities are limited to a subset of the paper's experiments. Although circumstances did not allow complete agreement among the paper's authors and the text does not list all of the scientific concerns that were raised in the initial inquiries, the published retraction statement and 'Editor's note' provide abundant explanation for why the paper must be removed from the scientific literature. We commend CGK scientists for raising the initial concerns with the Science and Nature Chemical Biology papers and the KAIST investigating committees for their efforts to date. It is reassuring that Korean institutions are taking a hard line on scientific misconduct. However, we do question the timing and content of the KAIST press release of February 29, 2008, which was made public without advance notice to the journal. It is not unusual for an institute to announce that an investigation is underway and to make another announcement at its conclusion. Ideally, though, investigating committees contact journals well in advance of making public statements, thereby ensuring that the information communicated is accurate at all stages. The potential negative impacts of scientific misconduct allegations on the accused and on the public perception of science cannot be underestimated. Statements to the press are useful, but first priorities should always be determining the facts quickly, giving due process to investigators under suspicion and correcting the literature.........As the KAIST committee completes its deliberations, we urge them to provide a full accounting of the case and make their findings widely available in English. This example would serve as a model for future investigations committed to maintaining the integrity of science and the scientific literature.Further online discussion on "Repairing research integrity" is taking place at Nature Network.
