Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Key Researcher Agrees To Retract Disputed Stem Cell Papers

Posted by Unknown on from the so-much-for-that dept.

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "After several months of fiercely defending her discovery of a new, simple way to create pluripotent stem cells, Haruko Obokata of the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan, has agreed to retract the two Nature papers that reported her work. Satoru Kagaya, head of public relations for RIKEN, headquartered in Wako near Tokyo, confirmed press reports today that Obokata had finally agreed to retract both papers. He said the institute would be notifying Nature and that the decision to formally retract the papers would be up to the journal."

6 of 61 comments (clear)

  1. Fabricated results by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another article I read about this mentioned that she confessed to fabricating "at least some results". Now, there are various reasons why a researcher would fabricate results, from the pressure to publish to just literally being evil, but in this case how would she ever expect to get away with it? This is not like a paper in my sub-field, which if I'm lucky five people will ever read. EVERYONE wants pluripotent stem cells, so of course a simple method to create them is going to be tested and replicated over and over and over.

    1. Re:Fabricated results by Stem_Cell_Brad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think this is the explanation. The lead author convinced herself that the procedure worked. Apparently, she was rather easily convinced by her own ideas. In order to convince other scientists, she had to fabricate some results. Those fabricated results enabled publication of the papers through peer review.

      The whole thing stinks. Let's say there is some merit to making pluripotent cells by stressing them with acid. Well, by lying about some of her results, the lead author essentially poisoned the whole area of research. She has made it difficult to now work on this topic because it will be overly scrutinized by any reviewer. Let say the whole idea is bogus. The lead author wasted time and energy of researchers around the world who are interested in this process.

      Although this may be obvious. The lesson is just never make up data. It is so myopic to think that you will benefit in any REAL way.

    2. Re:Fabricated results by steelfood · · Score: 5, Funny

      Publish or Parish, is the motto for researchers.

      Somehow, I'm not sure priesthood would be the alternate profession of choice for out-of-work scientists.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  2. Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha by sandytaru · · Score: 5, Informative

    If the methodology looked good and the data looked reasonable, it'd pass the initial round of peer review. They don't recreate the experiment as part of the editorial peer review, they just look for things that were overlooked or that don't make sense. It's up to other labs to reproduce the results and subsequently publish their own papers.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  3. Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The investigating panel said:

    The report also says that the experiments are so poorly documented "that it will be extremely difficult for anyone else to accurately trace or understand her experiments." In a stinging summary, the committee wrote: "Dr. Obokata's actions and sloppy data management lead us to the conclusion that she sorely lacks, not only a sense of research ethics, but also integrity and humility as a scientific researcher."

    Again, this is Nature we're talking about. Every time we get one of these situations, the apologists start up with "but peer-review wasn't meant to find that...", and yet the journals themselves are always chest-thumping about how everything they publish is infallible because it was peer-reviewed, except when it isn't, and then it's not their fault. Peer-review is just a crutch. It imparts a false sense on confidence where there shouldn't be any.

  4. Re:"Rigorous" peer-review ahahahahahaha by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Peer review is not a crutch. It is a necessary, but not sufficient check and balance. That said, the peer reviewers MAY have performed less than admirably (hey, it happens). The part that really has turned up under closer review is her methodology is awful. Peer reviewers tend to work along the assumption that the researcher knows what they are doing. That assumption appears to be incorrect (recall the first three letters of the word). Looking a detailed Materials and Methods is amazingly boring and often not even possible because editors don't want to 'waste' space in their precious journal having somebody detail where they got a reagent from or exactly how they (supposedly) did things.

    There is an increasing trend to require authors to put such details in the paper. Typically in a web based supplement (so it doesn't waste space in the precious journal). This trend has started for precisely these reasons.

    Nature is going to eat some deserved crow on this one. Fortunately, that is the time tested recipe for improvement.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!