More stem cell fraud uncovered

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosalinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rosalinda

Guest
Some people never learn.
The Office of Research Integrity has penalized another stem cell researcher for misconduct - specifically, falsifying images in an unpublished manuscript. The scientist, Jong-hyuk Park, was working as postdoc under the supervision of Gerald Schatten at the University of Pittsburgh at the time of the incident, and was a former colleague of South Korea’s Woo-suk Hwang, who has admitted to falsifying his work on human embryonic stem cells.

Last week, Park was found guilty of deliberately falsifying photographic images in an unpublished manuscript circulated to his laboratory colleagues, and attempting to destroy the evidence of his misconduct. He has been barred from applying or receiving federal grants, contracts, or loans for three years.

According to the Federal Register, Park “intentionally and knowingly” falsified different versions of two figures in a paper he was preparing for submission to Nature, entitled “Rhesus Embryonic Stem Cells Established by Nuclear Transfer: Tetraploid ESCs Differ from Fertilized Ones.” Park “repeatedly misrepresented” the accuracy of one of the figures to a University of Pittsburgh investigative panel, and deleted prior versions of the figures from his laboratory server to eliminate the record of revisions.
the-scientist.com/news/home/40903/
 
Falsifying data is scientific misconduct in ANY scientific discipline, and this does not only encompass embryonic stem cell research.

When I usually read a paper, I have to assume that the authors accurately reported their data, and I think other scientists have to, as it involves time and resources to reproduce an experiment. But if a group of investigators relies on falsified data, and another group of investigators relies on their data, and so on, it disrupts the process of scientific inquiry as their research relies on the veracity of the falsified data. Eventually, other investigators will attempt to reproduce the data, but fail. When this happens, the erroneous data will be exposed.

sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5759/335b
Science regrets the time that the peer reviewers and others spent evaluating these papers as well as the time and resources that the scientific community may have spent trying to replicate these results.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top