Archive for the ‘scientific misconduct’ Category

Diederik Stapel faked at least 30 papers

October 31, 2011

Social psychology is going to take a beating over the Diederik Stapel fraud. It provides ample fuel for the view that social psychology is no science but merely the half-baked opinions of narcissists and charlatans. Ego trips and TV appearances have governed the field rather than any scientific rigour.

The interim report of the investigation being carried out by the of Universities of Tilburg and Groningen which started in mid September is now out.

Diederik Stapel

The interim report (in Dutch) is here:

pdf Stapel interim-rapport

The extent of the fraud is breathtaking and the investigation is far from over. At least 30 papers have been found to contain fraudulent data, at least 14 doctoral theses that he supervised are compromised for using fabricated data and in all about 150 papers going back to 2004 are being investigated. Legal action is to be taken. This one is going down in the history books.

(Update! 1st November: Science Insider carries the story here)

Dutch News writes:

(more…)

More dodgy papers for National University of Singapore to investigate

October 24, 2011

Update: 31st October 2011: Further dodgy papers are given in the next instalment from Abnormal Science.

Japanese Retraction Watch has also been on the case.

=============================

Abnormal Science ( Joerg Zwirner) has 3 more examples of papers with some questionable images. This time the papers are from the Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore with 2 papers published in Blood and one in the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

The three papers tagged are:

1. Pervaiz S, Seyed MA, Hirpara JL, Clément MV, Loh KW.
Purified photoproducts of merocyanine 540 trigger cytochrome C release and caspase 8-dependent apoptosis in human leukemia and melanoma cells.
Blood. 1999 Jun 15;93(12):4096-108.
Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore; and the Oncology Research Institute, NUMI, Singapore

2. Hirpara JL, Seyed MA, Loh KW, Dong H, Kini RM, Pervaiz S.
Induction of mitochondrial permeability transition and cytochrome C release in the absence of caspase activation is insufficient for effective apoptosis in human leukemia cells.
Blood. 2000 Mar 1;95(5):1773-80.
Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

3. Hirpara JL, Clément MV, Pervaiz S.
Intracellular acidification triggered by mitochondrial-derived hydrogen peroxide is an effector mechanism for drug-induced apoptosis in tumor cells.
J Biol Chem. 2001 Jan 5;276(1):514-21.
Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore

The two names common to all 3 papers are JL Hirpara and research supervisor Professor Shazib Pervaiz.

The NUS investigation committee has its work cut out with all the questionable papers they need to check out (See here and here).

As Abnormal Science puts it:

Their inquiry commissions might soon run out of unbiased members. NUS should consider to accept assistance from abroad to clean up the mess.

And it seems to be truly a mess covering a number of departments which indicates a prevailing culture and not just some isolated incident of wrongdoing.

Academic Pandora’s box in Singapore well and truly open as more allegations of misconduct surface

October 20, 2011

Skeletons seem to be tumbling out of the Singapore academic closet thick and fast as one allegation follows hot on the heels of the last. Previous revelations are here, and here.

1. Abnormal Science reports that another whistleblower has appeared and has pointed out image irregularities (image manipulations?) in two more publications, both from  the Department of Pharmacology, National University of Singapore. Abnormal Science.

2. From the Straits Times (h/t as pointed out by an Abnormal Science reader) it is reported that a famous cancer scientist in Singapore is having his work challenged. If Prof. Yoshiaki Ito’s work is found to be flawed then some 200 other publications based on his results would be thrown into doubt.

The Times article is behind a pay wall but Asia News Net  carries the article (more…)

Further shenanigans at Singapore’s Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*)

October 15, 2011

Singapore was recently rocked by the Melendez affair where a much vaunted scientist was found to have manipulated data and 70 of his scientific papers are now under investigation. An excellent summary of the situation is here at Retraction Watch. Alirio Melendez who is currently employed by the University of Liverpool has been suspended pending the results of the investigation. In the strait-laced Singapore society which is utterly convinced about its own excellence in all things, this has come as a rude shock and shattered the complacent view of the academic world that “misconduct does not happen here”. There is now some concern that the reputation of the academic world in Singapore may be seriously tarnished.

But the misconduct may be rather more widespread than they would like to think. The “rotten” core was revealed by an “anonymous whistleblower” but it may be just the opening of the lid of a Pandora’s box.

Joerg Zwirner, an immunologist and associate professor at Georg-August-Universität Göttingen reports further cases of misconduct at Abnormal Science. He reports – courtesy of the whistleblower again – on 3 further papers where image manipulation is apparent. This time the common author is Kong-Peng Lam, of  the Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Immunology, Biomedical Sciences Institutes, Singapore Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).

Singapore and scientific misconduct: No end in sight

The three papers where image manipulation is apparent are:

1. Ng CH, Xu S, Lam KP.
Dok-3 plays a nonredundant role in negative regulation of B-cell activation.
Blood. 2007; 110: 259-66.

2. Tan JE, Wong SC, Gan SK, Xu S, Lam KP.
The adaptor protein BLNK is required for b cell antigen receptor-induced activation of nuclear factor-kappa B and cell cycle entry and survival of B lymphocytes.
J Biol Chem. 2001; 276:20055-63.

3. Wong SC, Chew WK, Tan JE, Melendez AJ, Francis F, Lam KP.
Peritoneal CD5+ B-1 cells have signaling properties similar to tolerant B cells.
J Biol Chem. 2002; 277: 30707-15.

Prof. KP Lam’s profile at A* is here. He has Minnesota, Columbia and Stanford behind him and a long list of publications in major journals.

A book is born: Finally a hard light on the IPCC’s advocacy

October 14, 2011

I have just started reading this book but have been following the author’s investigations of the IPCC’s rather “unscientific” advocacy on behalf of environmental lobby groups for some time.

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World's Top Climate Expert

by Donna Laframboise

The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert

by  Donna Laframboise.

Admirable.

Scientific retractions increasing sharply but is it due to better detection or increased misconduct?

October 5, 2011

Retractions of scientific papers is increasing sharply.

I am a strong believer in the Rule of the Iceberg where “whatever becomes visible is only 10% of all that exists”. And while I do not know if the number of retractions of scientific papers is increasing because detection methods are improved or because scientific misconduct is increasing, I am quite sure that the misconduct that is indicated by retractions is only a small part of all the misconduct that goes on.

What is clear however is that the world wide web provides a powerful new forum for the exercising of a check and a balance. It provides a hitherto unavailable method for mobilising resources from a wide and disparate group of individuals. The success of web sites such as Retraction Watch and Vroniplag are testimony to this. And the investigative power of the on-line community is particularly evident with Vroniplag as has been described by Prof.  Debora Weber-Wulff’s blog. And this investigative power – even if made up of “amateurs” in the on-line community – can bring to bear a vast and varying experience of techniques and expertise which – if harnessed towards a particular target – can function extremely rapidly. The recent on-line investigation and disclosure that an award winning nature photographer had been photo-shopping a great number of photographs of lynxes, wolves and raccoons and had invented stories about his encounters was entirely due to “amateurs” on the Flashback Forum in Sweden who very quickly created a web site to disclose all his trangressions and exactly how he had manipulated his images.

Nature addresses the subject of retractions today:

This week, some 27,000 freshly published research articles will pour into the Web of Science, Thomson Reuters’ vast online database of scientific publications. Almost all of these papers will stay there forever, a fixed contribution to the research literature. But 200 or so will eventually be flagged with a note of alteration such as a correction. And a handful — maybe five or six — will one day receive science’s ultimate post-publication punishment: retraction, the official declaration that a paper is so flawed that it must be withdrawn from the literature. … But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400 (see ‘Rise of the retractions’) — even though the total number of papers published has risen by only 44% over the past decade. …. 

…… When the UK-based Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) surveyed editors’ attitudes to retraction two years ago, it found huge inconsistencies in policies and practices between journals, says Elizabeth Wager, a medical writer in Princes Risborough, UK, who is chair of COPE. That survey led to retraction guidelines that COPE published in 2009. But it’s still the case, says Wager, that “editors often have to be pushed to retract”. …… 

In surveys, around 1–2% of scientists admit to having fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once (D. Fanelli PLoS ONE4, e5738; 2009). But over the past decade, retraction notices for published papers have increased from 0.001% of the total to only about 0.02%. And, Ioannidis says, that subset of papers is “the tip of the iceberg” — too small and fragmentary for any useful conclusions to be drawn about the overall rates of sloppiness or misconduct.

Instead, it is more probable that the growth in retractions has come from an increased awareness of research misconduct, says Steneck. That’s thanks in part to the setting up of regulatory bodies such as the US Office of Research Integrity in the Department of Health and Human Services. These ensure greater accountability for the research institutions, which, along with researchers, are responsible for detecting mistakes.

The growth also owes a lot to the emergence of software for easily detecting plagiarism and image manipulation, combined with the greater number of readers that the Internet brings to research papers. In the future, wider use of such software could cause the rate of retraction notices to dip as fast as it spiked, simply because more of the problematic papers will be screened out before they reach publication. On the other hand, editors’ newfound comfort with talking about retraction may lead to notices coming at an even greater rate. …… 

Read the article

A graphic of retractions is here.

The academic and scientific community will – perforce – mirror the surrounding society it is embedded in. Standards of ethics and instances of misconduct will follow those of the surrounding environment. But the scientific community is somewhat protected in terms of not often having to bear liability for what they have published. Having to bear some responsibility and face liability for the quality of what they produce can be a force which will improve ethical standards immensely. Bringing incompetent or cheating scientists to book is not an attack on science. And it is what science needs to regain some of the reputation that has been tarnished in recent times. With the spotlight that is now available in the form of the world wide web, I expect the level of scrutiny to increase and this too can only be a force for the good.

Another case of misconduct at a private Indian college: Plagiarism at Nagpur College of Engineering

October 1, 2011

(link updated)

K. S. Jayaraman of Nature India reports on a blatant case of plagiarism at the G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering in Nagpur. Not only did a doctoral student, Parag Puranik, copy material from an American scientist but the Director of the institute, Preeti Bajaj, added her name as a co-author but she denies any knowledge of the admitted plagiarism nor does she take any responsibility.

Director Dr. Preeti Bajaj

Unfortunately the habit of senior academic staff merely adding their names onto papers written by their juniors seems to be quite prevalent. And – as in this case – where they provide no guidance, exercise no quality asssurance and probably do not even read what has been written by their students but are quite happy to add another publication to their list, they exhibit the worst kind of parasitic behaviour.

In yet another case of misconduct, scientists of a large PhD-granting research university in India have confessed having plagiarised a paper from an American scientist. The institute G. H. Raisoni College of Engineering in Nagpur, Maharashtra has named one of its doctoral students Parag Puranik for copying material from a paper by Lior Shamir, assistant professor of computer science, at the Lawrence Technological University in Southfield, Michigan. The co-authors of the paper, which include the director of the institute, say they had no knowledge of this blatant copying.

American computer scientist Shamir was shocked to notice that an important paper he published in 2006 was recycled and copied not once but thrice by a group of researchers at the Nagpur institute. “I became aware of it recently after I received an anonymous e-mail,” Shamir told Nature India.

(more…)

Scientific negligence goes on trial for manslaughter in Italy

September 20, 2011

“Scientists” today enjoy a general reputation for being unbiased, objective, incorruptible and dauntless seekers after truth. With this reputation they also have little liability for their pronouncements or for the integrity or the quality of their work. This is not sustainable as the politicisation of science is increasingly unavoidable and temptations for scientific misconduct grow. To try and de-politicise science is impractical. More emphasis can be placed on developing ethical standards which should reduce the incidence of misconduct. But I think the key is to ensure that scientists carry some liability for what they do and that they do it honestly. A scientist is no less a professional than a lawyer or an engineer or a physician or an architect. They do have some liability for the quality of what they do. Incompetence, negligence or dishonesty carry penalties for other professions and scientists can not and should not be exempt.

Of course the scientific community is up in arms about the seismologists being tried for manslaughter in Italy, but they do need to be held accountable for their negligence or incompetence – if demonstrated. Wearing a white coat and calling oneself a “scientist” should not provide automatic immunity from accountability and liability.

Scientific American:  By Nicola Nosengo

Six Italian seismologists and one government official will be tried for the manslaughter of those who died in the earthquake that struck the city of L’Aquila on 6 April 2009. The seven were on a committee that had been tasked with assessing the risk associated with recent increases in seismic activity in the area. Following a committee meeting just a week before the quake, some members of the group assured the public that they were in no danger. 

In the aftermath of the quake, which killed 309 people, many citizens said that these reassurances were the reason they did not take precautionary measures, such as leaving their homes. As a consequence, the public prosecutor of L’Aquila pressed manslaughter charges against all the participants in the meeting, on the grounds that they had falsely reassured the public. After several delays, the public prosecutor Fabio Picuti and the defendants’ lawyers appeared this week before Giuseppe Gargarella, the judge for preliminary hearings, who had to decide whether to dismiss the case or proceed with a trial.

During the hearing, the prosecutor called the committee’s risk assessment “superficial and generic”, resulting in “incomplete, imprecise and contradictory public information”. Responding to the thousands of scientists who had signed a letter of support for the defendants, the prosecutor acknowledged that the committee members had no way of predicting the earthquake, but he accused them of translating their scientific uncertainty into an overly optimistic message. More specifically, the accusation focuses on a statement made at a press conference on 31 March 2009 by Bernardo De Bernardinis, who was then deputy technical head of Italy’s Civil Protection Agency and is now president of the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Rome. “The scientific community tells me there is no danger,” he said, “because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable”. ….

 At the end of the hearing, the judge decided that the trial will begin on 20 September. …

The earthquake was surely not predictable and poor building standards surely contributed to the deaths but whether the scientists exhibited incompetence or negligence is a valid question. And if they did they need to be held accountable even if not perhaps for manslaughter.

Bruno Frey and his habitual self-plagiarising by the “cloning” of papers

September 16, 2011

Handelsblatt, Germany’s business daily has been investigating Bruno Frey and his habitual self-plagiarising for some months now. Bruno Frey is an economics professor at the University of Zurich and has been making a habit of publishing the same paper in multiple journals. He is also apparently a potential candidate for a Nobel prize!! Frey apparently carried out a fairly trivial analysis of the people who survived the Titanic sinking but then went and got it published – with very minor variations – in 5 different journals. That such mundane and repetitive material would be published in fairly heavyweight journals does not say much for their review processes.

Olaf Storbeck is an author and Economics editor with Handelsblatt and is responsible for the weekly economics section. He has been leading the charge and he writes in Economics Intelligence:

One of the most senior economists of the German speaking world faces serious questions about his scientific modus operandi. Bruno Frey and his research team are accused of self-plagiarism. Additionally, they at least showed an amazing degree of sloppiness with regard to literature research. Five older publications from different authors on exactly the same research question are missing from the references.

This blog (among others, especially Andrew Gelman’s as well as “Economic Logic” and the EJMR forum) has played a role in making the whole thing public. On Wednesday, 6 July the University of Zurich has started a formal investigation against Frey, based on the “suspicion of unethical scientific conduct”.

Bruno Frey (University of Zurich), Benno Torgler (Queensland University of Technology) and Torgler’s Ph.D. student David Savage simultaneously published a series of papers dealing with the sinking of the Titanic, but neither cross-reference their own work nor  cite a number of older papers by other researcher addressing exactly the same topic.

The articles by Frey, Torgler and Savage appeared in the “Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization”“PNAS”“Rationality and Society” and the“Journal of Economic Perspectives” in 2010 and 2011. They used individual-level passenger data showing the age, gender, ticket class and nationality of 2207 people sailing on the Titanic and employed an econometrical analysis on the determinants of survival. For several months the authors have been criticised because they simultaneously published nearly identical papers in four different journals without mentioning their other work on the same topic to the editors.

the article continues>>>>

Professor Debra Weber-Wulff comments on Bruno Frey on her blog:

The “Journal of Economic Perspectives” (JEP) has formally censured him, the “Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization” (JEBO) has blacklisted the authors and will not accept any further papers from them. Frey and Torgler have said that Savage is not at fault and have tendered excuses at 3 of the 4 journals [German language detail: The article says that they “excused themselves”, I always thought you had to ask the other party to excuse you –dww]. Apparently, Frey had not gotten around to writing to the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” (PNAS) before the Handelsblatt started its investigations. 

The whole issue seems to have started with the blog Economic Logic and an entry entitled On the ethics of research cloning. The author of the blog had a good look at the CVs of the senior authors and finds evidence both of slicing results very thin in order to get much publication mileage out of them, as well as republishing the same results multiple times. In the comments a number of other clones showed up, and a  FreyPlagWiki (the currently popular German way to collect evidence on scientific misconduct and plagiarism) was set up. 

Interesting things have popped up, such as Frey exempting his doctoral students from coursework now required by the University in Zürich, or his being dropped from an editorial board without explanation.

Olaf Storbeck has found further examples of Frey’s multiple publications which he documents in this  Google Table  describing the “cloning” of 5 publications. But Storbeck’s article contains some disturbing reports of the behaviour of Journal Editors – in particular Jürgen Backhaus Professor of Finance and Fiscal Sociology at the Political Sciences Faculty of the University of Erfurt and Editor-in-chief of Springer’s European Journal of Law and Economics (EJLE).

Bruno Frey: More cases of self-plagiarism unveiled …. However, when I talked to Jürgen Backhaus on Sunday, the editor-in-chief was strongly backing Bruno Frey. Backhaus argued that Frey is known for his new and unconventional ideas. According to Backhaus, it was necessary to repeat them again and again to get them through to a reluctant audience. Backhaus told me:

“It is well known in the profession that Bruno Frey works like this.”

He said that it was an honour to be able to publish an article by Frey:

“He is an internationally renown academic who is a candidate for the Nobel prize.”

According to Backhaus, publishing an article by Frey enhances the attention for other articles in the journal. I asked him how he would explain to a PhD student that the official submission guidelines of the journals apparently are not applicable to Frey. His answer was:

“Bruno Frey is a trademark. The PhD student still has to build one.”

I was really stunned by these remarks. I emailed those quotes (in German) to Backhaus prior to publication. He confirmed that I quote him correctly. (Translations from German into English were done by me, however.) …… If the EJLE wants to retain any credibility and if Springer takes the COPE guidelines seriously, they won’t have any choice but to officially retract both articles. Additionally, I don’t see how Frey can stay on the editorial board of a journal which submission guidelines he repeatedly has clearly violated.

 

Tilburg University on terms of reference for Diederik Stapel misconduct inquiry

September 15, 2011

Following the suspension (pending dismissal) of Diederik Stapel for faking data, Tilburg University has published the terms of reference of the Levelt investigation committee and which is to report latest by the end of October.

Universiteit van Tilburg

Rector Magnificus of Tilburg University Prof. P. Eijlander has asked the Levelt Committee to investigate the extent and nature of the breach of scientific integrity committed by mr. Stapel. There are two elements to the task:

  1. The committee will examine which publications are based on fictitious data or fictitious scientific studies and during which period the misconduct took place.
  2. The committee should form a view on the methods and the research culture that facilitated this breach of scientific integrity, and make recommendations on how to prevent any recurrence of this.

The committee will publish its (interim) report by the end of October at the latest. The universities of Groningen and Amsterdam have both appointed staff members responsible for communication with the inquiry. 

Members committee
Prof.dr. W.J.M. Levelt, Prof.mr. M.S. Groenhuijsen, Prof.dr. J.A.P. Hagenaars,

Dr.ir. S.A.M. Baert (secretary)

Prof. Levelt is a psycho-linguist and former president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences while Prof. Groenhuijsen and Prof. Hagenaars are from Tilburg’s Law School.

Stapel has agreed to cooperate fully with the investigation and to help identify every instance of data fabrication. There are likely to be a number of retractions to come from among his published papers. It would though be a good sign if the Journals involved were to be pro-active in identifying these rather than starting their processes only after the investigation was complete. Some of the journals involved could be ScienceEuropean Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.