Articles pulled after data fabrication in Cambridge DNA lab

Retractions in Nature and Science follow Abderrahmane Kaidi’s resignation from Bristol

April 12, 2019
cambridge-university
Source: Getty

Articles in Science and Nature have been retracted after it emerged that data had been faked in one of the world’s leading DNA laboratories.

Cancer biologist Abderrahmane Kaidi, who had already resigned from the University of Bristol after admitting making up experiments and fabricating data, has confessed to doing the same thing while he was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cambridge. Dr Kaidi worked in the laboratory led by Steve Jackson, a world-leading DNA researcher, between 2007 and 2013, and Professor Jackson was named as a co-author on both of the papers that have been retracted.

A Cambridge spokeswoman said that Dr Kaidi had been investigated under the university’s misconduct in research policy.

“The investigation has upheld the allegations against Dr Kaidi, who has admitted misrepresentation and fabrication of data in two papers. Dr Kaidi has taken full and sole responsibility for these actions.

“The university’s investigation did not identify any concerns regarding any of Dr Kaidi’s co-authors on these papers. The journals concerned have been informed of the outcome of the university investigation.”

The Science paper, published in 2010, was titled “Human SIRT6 promotes DNA end resection through CtIP deacetylation”. The university said that it had concluded that “falsification of research data” had occurred.

The second retracted article – “KAT5m tyrosine phosphorylation couples chromatin sensing to ATM signalling” – was published in Nature in 2013. The retraction said that the paper had been withdrawn “to correct the scientific literature, owing to issues with figure presentation and underlying data. The authors cannot confirm the results in the affected figures and thus wish to retract the article in its entirety.”

Dr Kaidi resigned from Bristol last year after admitting “to having fabricated research data to convince a collaborator in another institution that certain experiments had taken place, when this was not the case”, the university said. At the time he was being investigated over his behaviour towards other members of his research group.

While none of Dr Kaidi’s collaborators at either Cambridge or Bristol were implicated in the data fabrication, the case has been seen as demonstrating that research misconduct can occur anywhere, even in the most prestigious laboratories which produce the most influential science.

“It can go on anywhere, for sure,” said John Hardy, chair of molecular biology of neurological disease at UCL.

Speaking generally, Simon Kolstoe, a senior lecturer and university ethics adviser at the University of Portsmouth, said that there might be particular temptation for early career researchers to commit misconduct in top-level laboratories owing to the pressure to “continually produce exciting and novel results”.

“There is significantly more pressure on researchers at ‘research-intensive’ institutions to come up with whizzy observations to support regular publications in high-impact journals that then lead to grant income,” Dr Kolstoe said. “Such institutions are really quick at getting rid of whole labs that they do not see continuing as high performers in favour of replacing them with new, younger, bright sparks who may flare and then disappear themselves.

“It’s a sad state of affairs because it ruins careers and leads to temptations to cheat. I’m convinced that this perverse incentive culture – and the commodification of novel results – within academia is mostly responsible for such misconduct.”

nick.mayo@timeshighereducation.com

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

相关文章

Reader's comments (4)

Until we admit that science fraud underpins so many "beliefs" held by the scientific establishment it is hypocritical to focus on those lower down the hierarchy. Darwin and Wallace each commit science fraud (arguably the world's greatest) by plagiarism, lies and glory theft. See the Big Data detected, independently verifiable, new evidence that is just too disturbing for the so called scientific "establishment" to face: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05
Yeah, and the earth is flat... The danger is exactly this, that people start doubting scientific findings in their entirety. This is not about belief - that belongs in the sphere of religion - but about Dr Kaidi making a choice, and that was to forge results instead of truthfully admitting that he had not done the work, or that the results were not as expected. It is easy to blame ‘perverse incentives’ - they are certainly there but it’s unfair to the majority of scientists who face the same challenges and don’t stray from the path. This incident does not prove that science is wrong, but that the controls worked, at least for once. We need to establish a culture more tolerant of ‘negative results’, and value the knowledge that comes from ‘failed’ experiments.
As I was saying, painful fully confirmable facts - even those in expert peer reviewed journals - attract knee-jerk reaction responses from credulous true believers in debunked science mythology. In this sill comment about flat Earthers we see a typical example of the lower order. Of course, like religious nut jobs they are far too lazy to think and check the independently verifiable facts that debunk their mere comfort-beliefs. Not only are Darwin and Wallace proven plagiarists but - contrary to beliefs amongst the zombie horde in science - Richard Dawkins never coined the term or concept selfish gene. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/66
Such is the game: senior faculty happily adding their name to any paper as “co-author” and take credit but cleared of any wrong-doing when something goes awry. How can you be an “author” but not responsible of any subsequent issues of something you supposedly is an integral part of?

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October