Seven studies by researchers at the prestigious Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have been retracted over the past two months after a science blogger claimed that the images used in them had been manipulated or duplicated.
The retractions are the latest development in a months-long controversy surrounding research at the Boston-based institute, a teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School.
The issue came to light after Sholto David, a microbiologist and volunteer science sleuth from Wales, published a scathing post on his blog in January alleging errors and image manipulations in dozens of articles written mainly by Dana-Farber researchers had been produced. The institute acknowledged errors and subsequently announced that it had requested the retraction of six studies and corrections to another 31 articles. However, Dana-Farber also said that an error review process was underway before David’s post.
Now at least one more study has been retracted than Dana-Farber initially indicated, and David said he has discovered another 30 studies by authors affiliated with the institute that he believes contained errors or image manipulations and therefore deserve scrutiny.
The episode has jeopardized the reputation of a major cancer research institute and raised questions about a high-profile researcher there, Kenneth Anderson, who is a senior author on six of the seven retracted studies.
Anderson is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana-Farber. He did not respond to multiple emails or voicemails seeking comment.
The retractions and new allegations contribute to a larger, ongoing debate in science about how to protect scientific integrity and reduce the incentives that can lead to misconduct or unintentional errors in research.
The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute moved relatively quickly to obtain retractions and corrections.
“Dana-Farber is deeply committed to a culture of accountability and integrity, and as an academic research and clinical care organization we also prioritize transparency,” said Dr. Barrett Rollins, the institute’s integrity research officer, said in a statement. “However, we are bound by federal regulations that apply to all academic medical centers funded by the National Institutes of Health and others. Therefore, we cannot share details of internal review processes and will not comment on personnel matters.”
The retracted studies were originally published in two journals: one in the Journal of Immunology and six in Cancer Research. Six of the seven focused on multiple myeloma, a form of cancer that develops in plasma cells. Retraction reports indicate that Anderson agreed to the retractions of the articles he wrote.
Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and longtime image sleuth, reviewed several retraction statements and scientific images from the paper for NBC News and said the errors were serious.
“The ones I’m looking at all have duplicate elements in the photos, where the photo itself has been manipulated,” she said, adding that these elements were “signs of misconduct.”
Dr. John Chute, who directs the division of hematology and cellular therapy at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and has contributed to multiple myeloma studies, said the articles were produced by pioneers in the field, including Anderson.
“These are people I admire and respect,” he said. “These were all articles with a high impact, which means that they were widely read and widely cited. By definition, they have had a broad impact on the field.”
Chute said he did not know the authors personally but had followed their work for a long time.
“These researchers are among the leaders in myeloma research and they have paved the way for understanding our biology of the disease,” he said. “The articles they publish lead to all kinds of additional work in that direction. People follow those directions and the industry pays attention and drug development follows.”
The retractions provide additional evidence for what some science sleuths have been saying for years: the more you look for errors or image manipulation, the more you might find, even at the highest levels of science.
Scientific images in articles are typically used to present evidence of the results of an experiment. Usually they show cells or mice; other types of images show important findings such as western blots – a laboratory method that identifies proteins – or bands of separated DNA molecules in gels.
Scientific sleuths sometimes examine these images for irregular patterns that could indicate errors, duplications, or manipulations. Some artificial intelligence companies are also training computers to detect these types of problems.
Duplicated images can be a sign of sloppy lab work or data practices. Manipulated images – where a researcher has heavily modified an image with photo editing tools – can indicate that images have been exaggerated, enhanced or altered in an unethical way that could change the way other scientists interpret the findings or the scientific significance of a study.
Top scientists from large research institutions often run vast laboratories with many young scientists. Critics of scientific research and publishing systems argue that a lack of opportunities for young scientists, limited supervision and pressure to publish splashy papers that can advance careers can encourage misconduct.
These critics, along with many scientific sleuths, argue that errors and sloppiness are all too common, that research organizations and authors often ignore concerns when they are identified, and that the path from complaint to correction is slow.
“When you look at the number of retractions and poor peer review in research today, the question is: What happened to the quality standards we used to think existed in research?” said Nick Steneck, professor emeritus at the University of Michigan and an expert on scientific integrity.
David told NBC News that he had shared some, but not all, concerns about additional image issues with Dana-Farber. He added that he had found no problems in four of the seven withdrawn investigations.
“It’s good that they picked up things that weren’t on the list,” he said.
NBC News requested an updated list of retractions and corrections, but Ellen Berlin, a spokeswoman for Dana-Farber, declined to provide a new list. She said the numbers could shift and the institute has no control over the form, format or timing of corrections.
“Any number we give you today could be different tomorrow and will probably be different a week from now or a month from now,” Berlin said. “The point of sharing figures with the public weeks ago was to make it clear to the public that Dana-Farber had taken swift and decisive action on the articles for which a Dana-Farber faculty member was the lead author.”
She added that Dana-Farber encouraged journals to correct the science as quickly as possible.
Bik said it was unusual to see multiple papers revoked at a highly regarded U.S. institution.
“I don’t think I’ve seen much of it,” she said. “In this case there was a lot of public attention and it seems like they are responding very quickly. It’s unusual, but how it should be.”
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com