Nutrition researcher censured over serial misconduct

At first glance, many of the western blots in the data of nutrition researcher Eric J. Smart, censured yesterday by the US government’s Office of Research Integrity over a 10 year career of misconduct, look innocuous.

But zooming in on two blots from one figure in a 2002 paper (pictured at right) from the Journal of Biological Chemstry, volume 277, pages 4925-31, reveals tell-tale noise patterns that may well betray the images’ common origin.

It is just one of 45 figures that the ORI says was fabricated by Smart in 10 papers,  7 grant applications, 1 submitted manuscript and 4 grant progress reports he prepared while on the faculty at the University of Kentucky(UKY) in Lexington. The office has recommended the papers be corrected or retracted.

Smart, who resigned from his position last May, is a nutritionist who studied cardiovascular disease, inflammation, and cholesterol. Some of his papers on membrane proteins have been cited hundreds of times. His violations included reporting data on knockout mice that did not exist in his laboratory as well as 33 instances of manipulating and duplicating western blots — a technique for identifying proteins.

Smart has agreed to exclude himself from raising grants from the National Institutes of Health for seven years as a result of the censure.

That is a relatively long exclusion compared to most ORI cases, which involve censures of three years or sometimes five. Indeed the longevity of Smart’s fakery seems comparable to that of Eric Poehlman, a researcher on aging at the University of Vermont in Burlington who was prosecuted for grant fraud in 2005 after faking data over eight years.

But as the US government made clear at the time, Poehlman’s fraud involved as many as 17 grant applications, and he also exacerbated his situation by destroying evidence and influencing witnesses. Smart resigned from UKY quietly in May, as a commenter on this Retraction Watch post about him points out.

Smart was not available for comment at time of publication.

Patent fiasco

This week seems to be the ‘patent fiasco’ week for India.

To grant or not{credit}Getty{/credit}

First up was a media report alleging that a top GM food crop scientist made false claims about his patents just to get a national award. The scientist in question — Kailash Bansal – claimed to have filed three patents for new gene discoveries in crops. On the basis of the claims, he was selected for a national award for outstanding research in transgenic crops for the year 2007-2008.  However, it turns out that he had not applied for any patent even till July 2009, when he got the award.

The report goes on to provide proof of this goof up by citing data obtained from a ‘Right to Information’ (RTI) query as well as through sources from the patent application committee of the scientist’s institute, which had no clue of the applications till the award citation mention them. When the committee quizzed Bansal on this, he provided a patent application number filed in August 2009.

The scientist, subsequently designated director of India’s plant gene bank despite these false claims, continues to hold the award.

The question that the case raises is whether such misconduct by senior scientists will continue to be pushed under the carpet or will the Indian Council of Agricultural Research – the coveted research body that employs the scientist in question – respond to the allegations and hold him accountable.

In another significant development, India revoked a patent on a herbal medicine to treat diabetes. The government withdrew a patent given to drug maker Avesthagen on its diabetes drug made out of extracts from locally available plant parts. The reason: the extracts are known to be integral parts of the Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha systems of medicine.

The move is being seen as the first step towards scrapping of many similar patents on medicines made out of commonly used plants and fruits such as amla, methi, karela and ashwagandha on grounds that they are part of traditional knowledge, something that India has begun to protect fiercely.

Coincidentally, Wired magazine started a series this week, analysing what is wrong with the patent systems and trying to find solutions to fix them. It would be great to follow the discussions over the coming weeks to see what lessons India can take home.

ORI: Former Harvard postdoc guilty of misconduct

Flow cytometry data plots were re-used in two different papers by Shane Mayack.{credit}Mayack, S. R., Shadrach, J. L., Kim, F. S. & Wagers, A. J. Nature 463, 495–500 (2010); Mayack, S. R. & Wagers, A. J. Blood 112, 519–531 (2008).{/credit}

Shane Mayack, a former postdoctoral researcher at the Joslin Diabetes Center, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, engaged in research misconduct by duplicating figures in a pair of publications and poaching figures from other sources, according to the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), which investigates fraud in federally funded research. The misconduct decision, noted yesterday in the Federal Register, concludes an investigation into the scientist’s work, which included two papers that were retracted during the past two years, one from this journal.

Mayack “neither admits nor denies ORI’s finding of research misconduct”, according to the note in the Federal Register. But she had previously argued in a post on the blog Retraction Watch that her publication in Nature was retracted hastily and without her consultation. Mayack has agreed to sanctions from the ORI that include close supervision for any work she might perform with federal funding in the next three years.

Continue reading

The new gatekeepers: reducing research misconduct

Mistakes, goofs and outright deceptions litter the scientific literature, but there is something that can be done about it. Scientists, writers and journal editors gathered at Rockefeller University in New York last evening to discuss increases in retracted research over the past several years and how best to correct the research record.

“Image manipulation is not a new phenomenon, but it is an increasingly visible one,” said Liz Williams, executive editor of the Journal of Cell Biology (JCB), a Rockefeller University Press journal that has led the way in ferreting out manipulated images before their publication. She was one of three panelists that I helped to bring together for the latest Science Online New York City (SONYC) event, hosted by nature.com and Rockefeller University.

Continue reading

Race defense

University of Connecticut Health Center researcher Dipak Das found guilty of fabrication and falsification of data has raised the ‘Indian therefore harassed’ card heard so many times in the past in western scientific circles.

Dipak Das

The researcher who worked on the health benefits of a chemical in red wine fabricated data in 145 separate research projects, a three-year investigation by the university has found. University officials have notified 11 scientific journal studies co-authored by Dipak Das of the fraud. The Jadavpur University alumnus, whose work focused on the grape skin antioxidant resveratrol, responded to the inquiry in a 2010 letter saying it was a “conspiracy against Indian scientists”.

“Careful examination of these papers (the inquiry report) would result in a striking feature. All the accused authors are of INDIAN ORIGIN…it is an entirely racial issue – war against Indian community and unfortunately I am also an Indian,” he said in a lengthy response to the inquiry defending himself and his Indian co-authors.

Now, why does this sound familiar? Why is it that falling back upon the ‘racial’ defense is the first response of many researchers found guilty of  misconduct. We discussed the feeling of ‘third world alienation’ in another blog post earlier and got some pertinent responses.

It would be good to hear from our readers — based on their analysis of the charges by the University of Connecticut and the defense provided by Das — as to whether they think the racial card is played with or without much substance in many such cases. What’s your view of the whole issue as a case study in this regard?