Scientists at a distinguished cancer laboratory at Columbia University have now retracted 4 studies, and a fifth has had a stern memo added accusing it of “gross abuse of the scientific publication system” – the most recent in research misconduct allegations recently made against several leading cancer scientists.
Last yr’s scientific investigation within the UK found discrepancies in the information published by the Columbia laboratory, including the reuse of photos and other images in various newspapers. Last month, The New York Times reported that the 2022 medical journal had quietly quashed a study conducted by stomach cancer researchers after an internal investigation by the journal found ethical violations.
Despite the removal of this study, the researchers — Dr. Sam Yoon, head of a oncological surgery department at Columbia University Medical Center and Changhwan Yoon, a junior biologist there – continued to publish studies containing questionable data. Since 2008, the 2 scientists have collaborated with other researchers on 26 papers that Detective Sholto David publicly tiled for falsely presenting experimental results.
One such article was withdrawn last month after The Times asked publishers concerning the allegations. In recent weeks, medical journals withdrawn Three additional studies that describe recent treatment strategies for stomach, head and neck cancers. Other laboratories cited these articles in roughly 90 articles.
A significant science publisher also included a blunt note on the article, which it originally removed without explanation in 2022. “This reuse (and partial misrepresentation) of data without proper attribution constitutes a serious abuse of the science publishing system,” the report said. he said.
Still, these measures only affected a small fraction of the lab’s suspicious documents. Experts said the episode illustrated not only the extent of unreliable research by leading labs, but in addition the tendency for science publishers to be slow, if in any respect, to answer significant problems once they’re discovered. As a result, other laboratories proceed to depend on questionable work with federal research dollars, allowing errors to build up within the scientific documentation.
“For every retracted paper, there are probably 10 that should be retracted,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which maintains a database of greater than 47,000 retracted studies. “Journals are not particularly interested in correcting the records.”
Columbia Medical Center declined to comment on the allegations against Dr. Yoon’s lab. It said each scientists remained at Columbia and the hospital “is fully committed to upholding the highest ethical standards and rigorously maintaining the integrity of our research.”
Lab Website was recently disabled. Colombia would not say why. Neither Dr. Yoon nor Changhwan Yoon might be reached for comment. (They should not related.)
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, where the researchers worked on the time a lot of the research was conducted, is examining their work.
The withdrawal of Colombian scientists comes amid growing concern about questionable data that underlies some medical research. Medical journals from the tip of February withdrawn seven identity documents by scientists from Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. This followed an investigation into data issues posted by Dr. Davidan independent molecular biologist who looks for abnormalities in published images of cells, tumors and mice, sometimes with the assistance of AI software.
The wave of allegations of misconduct has drawn attention to the pressure on academic scientists – even those like Dr. Yoon who also work as doctors – to conduct quite a few studies.
These studies often require clear images of experimental results. Publishing them helps scientists earn prestigious academic appointments and attract federal research grants that may profit them and their universities.
Dr. Yoon, a robotic surgery specialist known for treating stomach cancer, helped me with this almost $5 million federal research money over the course of his profession.
The most up-to-date retractions from his lab included papers from 2020 and 2021 that Dr. David wrote he said it included gross irregularities. The results appeared to incorporate similar images of cancer-stricken mice, though the mice were allegedly subjected to different experiments involving different treatments and cancer cell types.
The medical journal Cell Death & Disease withdrew two of the most recent studies, and Oncogene withdrew a 3rd. The journals show that the studies also reused other images, akin to similar photos of a constellation of cancer cells.
The research, which Dr. David described as having image problems, was largely overseen by senior Dr. Yoon. Changhwan Yoon, a research fellow who has worked with Dr. Yoon for ten years, was often the primary writer, which often means the scientist who performed a lot of the experiments.
Kun Huang, a scientist from China who supervised one among the recently withdrawn studies a 2020 article that didn’t include senior Dr. Yoon attributed problematic sections of this study to Changhwan Yoon. Doctor Huang who created these comments this month on PubPeer, a web site where scientists post about research, didn’t reply to an email in search of comment.
However, the elder Dr. Yoon has long been aware of problems within the research he published with Changhwan Yoon: The two scientists were notified of the removal in January 2022 of their gastric cancer study, which was found to violate ethical guidelines.
Research misconduct is commonly attributed to junior researchers conducting experiments. Other scientists, nevertheless, assign more responsibility to senior researchers who run laboratories and oversee research, even in the event that they mix work as physicians or administrators.
“The research world realizes that with great power comes great responsibility, and you are actually responsible not only for what one of your direct reports in the lab has done, but also for the environment that you create,” Dr. Oransky said.
In their latest public notices of withdrawal, medical journals said that they had lost confidence in the outcomes and conclusions. Imaging experts said a number of the abnormalities identified by Dr. David showed signs of intentional manipulation, akin to inverted or rotated images, while others may have resulted from sloppy copying and pasting errors.
The a little-noticed removal by a journal dedicated to gastric cancer research in January 2022, attention was drawn to the policy of some scientific publishers of not disclosing the explanations for retracting articles until they have formally appeared in print. This study appeared exclusively online.
Roland Herzog, editor of the journal Molecular Therapy, said the editors had prepared a proof that they intended to publish on the time the article was removed. However, Elsevier, the journal’s important publisher, informed them that such a note was unnecessary, he added.
Only after the Times article last month did Elsevier conform to publicly and sternly explain the article’s removal. In editorial this weekthe editors of Molecular Therapy have stated that they may make clear the removal of any articles published exclusively online in the longer term.
However, Elsevier said in a press release that it doesn’t consider the articles available online to be “recently published historical articles.” As a result, company policy continues to recommend that such articles be removed without explanation in the event that they are found to contain problems. The company said it gave editors the chance to supply additional information as needed.
Elsevier, which publishes nearly 3,000 journals and generates billions of dollars in annual revenueshas long criticized for opaque takedowns articles on the Internet.
The Columbia scientists’ papers, which found discrepancies in the information that remained unresolved, were largely disseminated by three major publishers: Elsevier, Springer Nature and the American Association for Cancer Research. In October, Dr. David alerted multiple journals to discrepancies in the information.
Each publisher has stated that they’re investigating reported concerns. Springer Nature said investigations are time-consuming because they might involve consulting experts, waiting for writer responses and analyzing raw data.
Dr. David also raised concerns about research independently published by scientists who collaborated with the Columbia researchers on a few of their recently retracted papers. For example, Sandra Ryeom, an associate professor of surgical sciences at Columbia University, published an article in 2003 while at Harvard stating that Dr. David it said it contained a replica image. As of 2021, she was married to the elder Dr. Yoon, based on a mortgage document from that yr.
The newspaper had Formal notice attached last week said “appropriate editorial action will be taken” once concerns over the information are resolved. Dr. Ryeom didn’t reply to an email in search of comment.
Columbia has sought to emphasise the importance of sound research practices. Hours after the Los Angeles Times article appeared last month, Dr. Michael Shelanski, the medical school’s senior associate dean for research, sent an email to school titled “Research Fraud Accusations – How to Protect Yourself.” He warned that such allegations, no matter their validity, could take a toll on the university.
“In the months it may take to investigate an allegation,” Dr. Shelanski wrote, “funding may be suspended and donors may feel their trust has been betrayed.”
