It's Over - Gino vs Harvard Fake Data Scandal; YouTube, October 2024

Pete Judo, YouTube ; It's Over - Gino vs Harvard Fake Data Scandal

Columbia Cancer Surgeon Notches 5 More Retractions for Suspicious Data; The New York Times, October 16, 2024

Benjamin Mueller, The New York Times; Columbia Cancer Surgeon Notches 5 More Retractions for Suspicious Data

"The chief of a cancer surgery division at Columbia University this week had five research articles retracted and a sixth tagged with an editor’s note, underscoring concerns about research misconduct that have lately bedeviled Columbia as well as cancer labs at several other elite American universities.

With the latest retractions, the Columbia lab, led by Dr. Sam Yoon, has had more than a dozen studies pulled over suspicious results since The New York Times reported in February on data discrepancies in the lab’s work.

The retracted studies were among 26 articles by Dr. Yoon and a more junior collaborator that a scientific sleuth in Britain, Sholto David, revealed had presented images from one experiment as data from another, a tactic that can be used to massage or falsify the results of studies.

Dr. Yoon’s more junior collaborator, Changhwan Yoon, no longer works in the lab, Columbia said in response to questions on Wednesday. But the university has said little else about what, if anything, it has done to address the allegations.

Since the Times article in February, Dr. Yoon’s name has been changed from Sam Yoon to S. Sunghyun Yoon on a Columbia website advertising surgical treatment options."

An epidemic of scientific fakery threatens to overwhelm publishers; The Washington Post, June 11, 2024

Adam Marcus

 and 

Ivan Oransky, The Washington Post

; An epidemic of scientific fakery threatens to overwhelm publishers

"A record number of retractions — more than 10,000 scientific papers in 2023. Nineteen academic journals shut down recently after being overrun by fake research from paper mills. A single researcher with more than 200 retractions.

The numbers don’t lie: Scientific publishing has a problem, and it’s getting worse. Vigilance against fraudulent or defective research has always been necessary, but in recent years the sheer amount of suspect material has threatened to overwhelm publishers.

We were not the first to write about scientific fraud and problems in academic publishing when we launched Retraction Watch in 2010 with the aim of covering the subject regularly."

Opinion: Harvard’s Claudine Gay should resign; The Washington Post, December 23, 2023

Ruth Marcus , The Washington Post; Opinion: Harvard’s Claudine Gay should resign

"Perhaps the most disturbing example is the least academic — Gay’s borrowing of words from another scholar, Jennifer L. Hochschild. In her acknowledgments for a 1996 book, Hochschild described a mentor who “showed me the importance of getting the data right and of following where they lead without fear or favor” and “drove me much harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

Gay’s dissertation thanked her thesis adviser, who “reminded me of the importance of getting the data right and following where they lead without fear or favor,” and her family, “drove me harder than I sometimes wanted to be driven.”

Now, can I just say? Acknowledgments are the easiest, and most fun part, of writing a book, the place where you list your sources and allies and all the people who helped you get the manuscript over the finish line. Why not come up with your own thanks? What does it say about a person who chooses to appropriate another’s language for this most personal task."

The Research Scandal at Stanford Is More Common Than You Think; The New York Times, July 30, 2023

 Theo Baker, The New York Times; The Research Scandal at Stanford Is More Common Than You Think

"To address research misconduct, it must first be brought into the light and examined in the open. The underlying reasons scientists might feel tempted to cheat must be thoroughly understood. Journals, scientists, academic institutions and the reporters who write about them have been too slow to open these difficult conversations.

Seeking the truth is a shared obligation. It is incumbent on all those involved in the scientific method to focus more vigorously on challenging and reproducing findings and ensuring that substantiated allegations of data manipulation are not ignored or forgotten — whether you’re a part-time research assistant or the president of an elite university. In a cultural moment when science needs all the credibility it can muster, ensuring scientific integrity and earning public trust should be the highest priority.

Theo Baker is a rising sophomore at Stanford University. He is the son of Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The Times."

Harvard professor who studies dishonesty is accused of falsifying data; NPR, June 26, 2023

Juliana Kim, NPR; Harvard professor who studies dishonesty is accused of falsifying data 

"Francesca Gino, a prominent professor at Harvard Business School known for researching dishonesty and unethical behavior, has been accused of submitting work that contained falsified results.

Gino has authored dozens of captivating studies in the field of behavioral science — consulting for some of the world's biggest companies like Goldman Sachs and Google, as well as dispensing advice on news outlets, like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and even NPR. 

But over the past two weeks, several people, including a colleague, came forward with claims that Gino tampered with data in at least four papers."

What is research misconduct? European countries can’t agree; Science, March 10, 2021

Cathleen O’Grady, Science; What is research misconduct? European countries can’t agree

"In Sweden, a national code takes 44,000 words to define research misconduct and discuss scientific values. Next door, Norway’s equivalent is a brisk 900 words, little more than in this news article. And it’s not just the size of the codes that differs across Europe: A new analysis of scientific integrity policies in 32 nations has found widely varying standards and definitions for research misconduct itself, despite a 2017 Europe-wide code of conduct intended to align them.

Research ethicists say the differences threaten to create confusion and disputes for international scientific collaborations. Teams often include members working in different countries; if a team member is accused of research misconduct, which country’s rules should apply? The decision affects who can be held responsible, and which behaviors are considered unethical. “It really is a difficult issue,” says Nicole Föger, managing director of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity."

University of Texas can’t take away student’s PhD; C & En, Chemical & engineering News, February 22, 2019

Bethany Halford, C & En, Chemical & engineering News; University of Texas can’t take away student’s PhD

"The University of Texas at Austin does not have the authority to revoke a student’s degree, according to a Feb. 11 ruling by Judge Karin Crump in Travis County, Texas district court. The judgment is the latest turn in the university’s years-long effort to strip Suvi Orr of her doctorate in chemistry. 

Orr began her graduate studies in organic synthesis in Stephen Martin’s lab in 2003. In 2008 she successfully defended her thesis. But six years later, UT Austin sent a certified letter to Orr saying the school was invalidating her thesis based on research misconduct. The university cited a 2011 Organic Letters paper that was retracted in 2012 (DOI: 10.1021/ol302236g) because two steps in the synthesis could not be reproduced.

Orr, now a senior principal scientist at Pfizer, denies any wrongdoing."

Jill Abramson Plagiarized My Writing. So I Interviewed Her About It; Rolling Stone, February 13, 2019

Jake Malooley, Rolling Stone;

Jill Abramson Plagiarized My Writing. So I Interviewed Her About It

When journalist Jake Malooley talked to the former New York Times executive editor, she admitted only to minor mistakes — but her responses were revealing

[Kip Currier: In yesterday's Information Ethics class session, looking at Plagiarism, Attribution, and Research Integrity and Misconduct, we explored this illuminating 2/13/19 interview of Jill Abramson--veteran journalist and the former first-ever female Executive Editor of The New York Times from 2011 until her firing in 2014--by Rolling Stone reporter Jake Malooley.

I also played the first ten minutes of a 2/20/19 radio interview of Abramson by WNYC's Brian Lehrer, in which Abramson fields questions from Lehrer about her ongoing plagiarism controversy and research/writing process.

The Abramson plagiarism controversy is a rich ripped-from-the-headlines case study, emphasizing the importance and implications of plagiarism and research integrity and misconduct. Imagine being in Abramson's Harvard University class this term, where the 1976 Harvard FAS alumna is teaching an Introduction to Journalism course...

Speaking of Harvard, The Harvard Crimson has an interesting 2/15/19 article on the continuing Abramson controversy, as well as prior instances of alleged plagiarism by a trio of prestigious Harvard professors in the early 2000's, who, following investigations, "faced no public disciplinary action": Current Policy, Past Investigations Offer Window Into Harvard’s Next Steps In Abramson Plagiarism Case]

"In the days that followed, Abramson gave interviews to Vox and CNN. She unconvincingly sidestepped definitions of plagiarism upheld by the Times and Harvard, contending she is guilty of little more than sloppiness. She also claimed Vice is “waging an oppo campaign” against her book. Amid all the equivocation and attempts to duck the plagiarist label, Abramson still had not sufficiently explained how my writing and that of several other journalists ended up running nearly word-for-word in her book. I didn’t feel personally aggrieved, as some colleagues believed I rightfully should. But I did think I was owed straight answers. So late last week, I requested an interview with Abramson through Simon & Schuster, the publisher of Merchants of Truth.

On Monday afternoon, Abramson phoned me from Harvard’s campus, where she would be teaching an introduction to journalism seminar. According to the syllabus for Abramson’s Spring 2019 workshop “Journalism in the Age of Trump,” a copy of which a student, Hannah Gais, tweeted, Merchants of Truth is assigned as required reading...

This interview has been condensed for length.

Correction: This article previously stated that Abramson was on her way to her Spring 2019 workshop, “Journalism in the Age of Trump.” It has been corrected to clarify that she was on her way to an introduction to journalism class."

He Promised to Restore Damaged Hearts. Harvard Says His Lab Fabricated Research.; The New York Times, October 29, 2018

Gina Kolata, The New York Times; 
He Promised to Restore Damaged Hearts. Harvard Says His Lab Fabricated Research. 

"For Dr. Piero Anversa, the fall from scientific grace has been long, and the landing hard.

Researchers worldwide once hailed his research as revolutionary, promising the seemingly impossible: a way to grow new heart cells to replace those lost in heart attacks and heart failure, leading killers in the United States.

But Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, his former employers, this month accused Dr. Anversa and his laboratory of extensive scientific malpractice. More than 30 research studies produced over more than a decade contain falsified or fabricated data, officials concluded, and should be retracted. Last year the hospital paid a $10 million settlement to the federal government after the Department of Justice alleged that Dr. Anversa and two members of his team were responsible for fraudulently obtaining research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

“The number of papers is extraordinary,” said Dr. Jeffrey Flier, until 2016 the dean of Harvard Medical School. “I can’t recall another case like this.”"

Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech; Retraction Watch, October 8, 2018

Retraction Watch; Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech

 

[Kip Currier: Quick question: How do you know if the scientific papers you're reading, and perhaps relying upon, represent "good" science or have been discredited? Enter Retraction Watch.

While working on a Research Misconduct chapter for my ethics textbook, I was reminded of Retraction Watch from one of my Information Ethics course's lectures. Retraction Watch is a project of its parent organization, The Center for Scientific Integrity, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, supported by grants like the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

The Mission of The Center for Scientific Integrity is "to promote transparency and integrity in science and scientific publishing, and to disseminate best practices and increase efficiency in science."

One of the Center's 4 goals is a freely accessible "database of retractions, expressions of concern and related publishing events, generated by the work of Retraction Watch."

Exploring some of the content areas on the Retraction Watch site, I was enticed to check out the so-called "Retraction Watch Leaderboard"--billed by Retraction Watch as their "unofficial list" ranking individuals by the number of papers that have been retracted. Not a list one wants to make! An interesting gender-based observation by Retraction Watch, which bears further study and elucidation:

"We note that all of the top 30 are men, which agrees with the general findings of a 2013 paper suggesting that men are more likely to have papers retracted for fraud."

Another good-to-know-about section of Retraction Watch is its "Top 10 Most Highly Cited Retracted Papers"...Here's looking at you, Andrew Wakefield--still "in the house", presently at #2, for your 1998 invalidated autism/vaccines paper co-authored with 12 other researchers (!), not retracted until 12 years later in 2010 (!), and, as of October 9, 2018, cited 499 times after retraction (!):

"Ever curious which retracted papers have been most cited by other scientists? Below, we present the list of the 10 most highly cited retractions. Readers will see some familiar entries, such as the infamous Lancet paper by Andrew Wakefield that originally suggested a link between autism and childhood vaccines. You’ll note that many papers — including the #1 most cited paper — received more citations after they were retracted, which research has shown is an ongoing problem."

Retraction Watch also reports examples of plagiarism, as evinced by this October 8, 2018 story about the incoming World Medical Association (WMA) President, Leonid Eidelman, delivering a speech that was, allegedly, a "mashup" of remarks from the 2014 past WMA President's speech to the WMA, an MIT press release, and a telemedicine company's website. Quite a patchwork quilt of "creative" unattributed sourcing. Canadian Medical Association leaves international group after president plagiarizes past president’s speech."]

Cornell Food Researcher's Downfall Raises Larger Questions For Science; NPR, September 26, 2018

Brett Dahlberg, NPR; Cornell Food Researcher's Downfall Raises Larger Questions For Science

"The fall of a prominent food and marketing researcher may be a cautionary tale for scientists who are tempted to manipulate data and chase headlines.

Brian Wansink, the head of the Food and Brand Lab at Cornell University, announced last week that he would retire from the university at the end of the academic year. Less than 48 hours earlier, JAMA, a journal published by the American Medical Association, had retracted six of Wansink's studies, after Cornell told the journal's editors that Wansink had not kept the original data and the university could not vouch for the validity of his studies."

China Issues Rules to Get Tough on Academic Integrity; Reuters, May 30, 2018

Reuters via New York Times; China Issues Rules to Get Tough on Academic Integrity

"China has issued new guidelines to enforce academic integrity in science that include plans to "record and assess" the conduct of scientists and institutions and punish anyone guilty of misconduct, state news agency Xinhua reported.

The guidelines, released on Wednesday by the ruling Communist Party and the State Council, or cabinet, prohibit plagiarism, fabrication of data and research conclusions, ghost-writing and peer review manipulation, according to Xinhua."

Fired Professor Shot 2 Men Outside Chappaqua Deli, Police Say; New York Times, 8/29/16

Jonah Engel Bromwich, New York Times; Fired Professor Shot 2 Men Outside Chappaqua Deli, Police Say:

"In October 2002, Mr. Chao joined Mount Sinai as a research assistant professor. He stayed at Mount Sinai until May 2009, when he received a letter of termination from Dr. Charney for “research misconduct,” according to a lawsuit that Mr. Chao filed against the hospital and Dr. Charney, among other parties, in 2010. He went through an appeals process, and was officially terminated in March 2010.

“In informing his colleagues of his termination, Mount Sinai/MSSM stated that Dr. Chao had been ‘fired for data fraud,’” the lawsuit said. The case was dismissed, and Mr. Chao lost on appeal."

This scientist nearly went to jail for making up data; Washington Post, 4/1/16

Amy Ellis Nutt, Washington Post; This scientist nearly went to jail for making up data:

"Scientific integrity took another hit Thursday when an Australian researcher received a two-year suspended sentence after pleading guilty to 17 fraud-related charges. The main counts against neuroscientist Bruce Murdoch were for an article heralding a breakthrough in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. And the judge's conclusions were damning.

There was no evidence, she declared, that Murdoch had even conducted the clinical trial on which his supposed findings were based.

Plus, Murdoch forged consent forms for study participants, one of whom was dead at the time the alleged took place.

Plus, Murdoch fraudulently accepted public and private research money for the bogus study, published in 2011 in the highly reputable European Journal of Neurology.

"Your research was such as to give false hope to Parkinson's researchers and Parkinson's sufferers," said Magistrate Tina Privitera, who heard the case in Brisbane. Still to go to trial is Murdoch's co-author, Caroline Barwood, who has also been charged with fraud."

Federal patent office rules against two Pitt doctors on vaccine application; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 9/11/15

Mark Roth, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Federal patent office rules against two Pitt doctors on vaccine application:

"When Dr. Kolls failed to add her name, Dr. Norris sought a university investigation. That was carried out by a faculty committee, which ruled in 2013 that even though the Norris lab had made the original discovery of the protein fragment cited in the patent application, it could not determine whether Dr. Kolls and Dr. Zheng had engaged in outright misconduct. Instead, the panel said, the two physicians were guilty of “research impropriety.”

Ironically, the patent office cited the Pitt faculty committee’s own report as the primary basis for ruling against Dr. Kolls and Dr. Zheng on the patent application. “The threshold question in determining inventorship is who conceived the invention,” the office said. “Unless a person contributes to the conception of the invention, he is not an inventor.” The “evidence appears to indicate that Kolls and Zheng do not meet the requirements of inventorship.”

The patent office gave Pitt, which is the lead party in the application, until Dec. 10 to respond to the decision. Pitt released a statement Friday saying it “appreciates the detail and attention the [patent office] is devoting to the careful evaluation of this patent application,” but “would continue its vigorous pursuit of the patentability of the remaining claims, in support of the science and each of the four named inventors.”

Pitt spokesman Ken Service said that meant the university would submit evidence advocating for inventor rights for all four scientists, and then let the patent office make the final decision."

[Podcast] If Science Takes A Wrong Turn, Who Rights It? ; NPR's Talk of the Nation, 8/5/11

[Podcast] Ira Flatow, NPR's Talk of the Nation: If Science Takes A Wrong Turn, Who Rights It? :

"Science is often idealized as a self-correcting system. But how often—and how quickly—is bad science set straight? Ira Flatow and guests discuss recent cases of scientific fraud that have led to retractions of journal studies, and whether human study volunteers have been harmed by bogus science."