Seven studies from researchers at the prestigious Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have been retracted over the last two months after a scientist blogger alleged that images used in them had been manipulated or duplicated.
Search the web for more detailed information
As covered on NBC news: nbcnews.com/science/science...
"The issue came to light after Sholto David, a microbiologist and volunteer science sleuth based in Wales, published a scathing post on his blog in January, alleging errors and manipulations of images across dozens of papers produced primarily by Dana-Farber researchers. The institute acknowledged errors and subsequently announced that it had requested six studies to be retracted and asked for corrections in 31 more papers. Dana-Farber also said, however, that a review process for errors had been underway before David’s post.
The episode has imperiled the reputation of a major cancer research institute and raised questions about one 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 the director of the Jerome Lipper Multiple Myeloma Center at Dana-Farber. He did not respond to multiple emails or voicemails requesting comment.
The retractions and new allegations add to a larger, ongoing debate in science about how to protect scientific integrity and reduce the incentives that could lead to misconduct or unintentional mistakes in research.
The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute has moved relatively swiftly to seek retractions and corrections."
This is why I'm encouraged to see paper authors provide access to raw data, so sleuths like Sholto David can use the growing number of verification tools to check for falsification, etc. and why independent verification of research findings is so very important.
Importantly, for CLL, there is plenty of independent evidence for the standard BTKi, BCL-2 and anti- CD20 monoclonal antibody drugs (the 'brutinibs', venetoclax and 'mabs') drugs from clinical trial results, plus the many posts of personal experiences posted here.
Neil
These aren't "errors", these are fabrications of data intended to mislead. Studies have shown that something on the order of 50% to 75% of all pre-trial cancer studies are not replicable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repli...
AI is going to make a lot of these kinds of retroactive reviews easier. Good. I doubt academia is sufficiently ethical to make required personnel changes, but at least we'll have an idea of how much to trust the research.
I believe it's a mix of fraud plus errors. 31 papers were corrected so far. 7 retracted so far.
Usually, image duplications are accidental, and often do not affect conclusions.
Scientific publishing is a huge industry, and reviewers and bloggers strughle to keep up. If you read a lit of papers, a subscription tov etraction Watch might be useful. They maintain databases of retracted papers and problem journals.
Htyps://retractionwatch.com
There is a handy browser plug-in cslled PubPeer that can flag retracted papers as well as comments and questions.
Https://pubpeer.com
The NIH NLM (National Library of Medicine) PubMed website flags retracted papers. The PubPeer plug-in will flag comments, even on reference lists and search lists on PubMed.
Fortunately, the CLL research community has proven reliable. I'll keep checking, and will post if needed. I'm sure there are others reading who will do the same.
=seymour=
Bad News (Secondary Cancer)
Chicken link to blood cancer
Acalabrutinib and Skin Cancers
Exercisedduring and after Cancer Treatment,
