A South Korean professor is withdrawing two research papers after apparently admitting he forged data on anti-aging techniques.
Kim Tae-kook, who is called Tae Kook Kim in some coverage, has been suspended from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology since February. He has said he will retract papers in Science and Nature Chemical Biology which early this year raised suspicions of fraud (BBC, AP, Yonhap).
However, in an email to a reporter from Science he stated that a “certain party has twisted this current situation to take an advantage of it”, implying he has not entirely admitted culpability (Science; subscription required).
The 2005 paper in Science detailed a technique called magnetism-based interactive capture or MAGIC, which used magnetic nano-particles to pinpoint drug targets. The 2006 Nature Chemical Biology paper also related to MAGIC and detailed a molecule that appeared to “extend the finite lifespan of normal human cells”.
Kim’s statement is another blow to Korean science, coming on the heals of high profile fraud by Hwang Wook-suk. Before this apparent admission of forgery, The Korea Times wrote an editorial linking the Kim case to fraud by Hwang Woo-suk. It said:
The nation has yet to learn a valuable lesson from the Hwang and Kim cases. It is imperative for universities and research institutes to establish firm verification systems for their research projects in a bid to prevent the recurrence of data manipulation.
However, a comment piece in the The Atlantic, takes a slightly different view:
The fault lies in ourselves as well as in our scientists. Science is plodding and nuanced, and most scientists are disinclined to overstate the implications of their findings. The public hungers for stunning leaps forward, and the press feeds our appetite by reporting on new developments as if they’re going to change our world overnight. When government funding and international prestige are added to the picture, our collective hopes create incentives to publish fast.
The current Nature Publishing Group line on the matter is, “We are in discussions with the KAIST and the authors of the paper to determine the best course of action consistent with our commitment to the integrity of the scientific literature while respecting an ongoing investigation.”