Fake photos used in embryonic stem cell research

As I write this, this is breaking news.

A study that appeared to have important implications for embryonic stem cell research was retracted from the journal Science after scientists found that photos in it had been faked.

The headline in Live Mint reads: "Photos found to be fake, Science retracts embryonic cell study." Not only is this shameful for any scientist, but in this case, it turns out that he is an Indian. This is not yet reported by Reuters, AP, or any other news agency.

Live Mint requires a (free) registration, so I'm reproducing (edited) content here:

A probe by the University of Missouri at Columbia found that the paper’s first author, Kaushik Deb, doctored images from one cell to make it appear they had come from several different cells, said R. Michael Roberts, an animal science professor and Deb’s supervisor, in a letter to the journal.

Science said in October that Deb’s results, published in February 2006, might not be reliable, and it waited for the author’s retraction after the university finished investigating. Science, Nature and other journals have been on guard against retouched pictures since the faked stem cell results of South Korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk were exposed last year.

Deb was studying which embryonic cells become stem cells and which implant the embryo into the placenta. His studies suggested that a protein, called cdx2, marked cells involved in implantation, suggesting that unmarked cells might be fated to become stem cells.

Other scientists, wary of doctored images after Hwang’s fakery, scrutinized the work closely and determined that a series of photos had been altered to look as though they had come from distinct cells, Roberts said.

Roberts said he didn’t expect to have to ferret out fraud while he was overseeing Deb’s work.
“He was relatively independent; I never looked over his shoulder,” Roberts said in a telephone interview. “Science is based on trust. If you’re going to mentor people, it’s almost impossible to look over their shoulders the whole time.”

Deb has resigned from the university, and Roberts said he believes the young scientist has returned to his home in India. Deb hasn’t returned telephone calls, letters or emails, Roberts said.

Given that stem cell research is already in so much controversy thanks to the religious right, is it wise to create further controversy through fake research? Don't these scientists have any morals or ethics or a general understanding of what's happening in society around them? And why does it have to be an Indian?!

Technorati Tags: , ,


Share this post :

Related posts:

  1. Real Unreality of Stem Cell Research
  2. Research Highlights from India
  3. Indian inventor doctor’s breakthrough

9 Comments

  • Mahen­dra,
    There have been sev­eral instances of sci­en­tific fraud. I am cer­tain that only a tiny per­cent­age (or, more likely, a frac­tion of a per­cent­age) is detected, and the rest is part of main­stream sci­en­tific lit­er­a­ture (hor­ri­ble thought it may sound). Even the New Eng­land Jour­nal of Med­i­cine has been a vic­tim of fraud, along with its read­ers. The bite of my ini­tial com­ment in your ‘Oscar cat’ post was exactly this. In the lab­o­ra­tory of my own mind, I may have done ALL the research, “just didn’t have time to take the pic­tures –hey, so what, just let me put in these num­bers (they don’t mat­ter any­ways)”.
    For my take on a sci­en­tific paper, try this arti­cle, and this one.

  • Thanks, doc. What you’re say­ing makes it look scary!

  • This ticks me off. One of the things I cher­ish about sci­ence (or at least the great sci­en­tists that I have met) is that they never hold on to a pet the­ory in the face of suf­fi­cient evi­dence sug­gest­ing a con­trary one. How can we uphold this ideal if evi­dence is doc­tored. It goes against what I was taught that sci­ence should be… the pur­suit of knowl­edge about nat­ural phenomena.

    I hate to be such an extrem­ist, but Deb should be sanctioned.

  • […] become heroes for spend­ing some time in jail while being inno­cent, and doc­tors who inten­tion­ally fake crit­i­cal evi­dence in sci­en­tific research, it is refresh­ing to read about an Indian doc­tor invent­ing a device […]

  • Aikaterene: yes, you can see from the tone of my post how ticked off I was too! Your words mir­ror my thoughts exactly. And for evi­dence being ‘doc­tored’ — what an inter­est­ing pun! :-)

  • […] in 2005, is one of the most noto­ri­ous sci­en­tific scan­dals of recent times. I had very recently posted about a sim­i­lar fraud by an Indian […]

  • sci­en­tific fraud and inno­cence are too hair line difer­ences… there are sev­eral fake, unre­pro­ducible and incom­pe­tent papers pub­lished in A grade jour­nals.. the BIG HEAVY weight boss runs off and their nexus with their friends and col­leagues gets them away.. some one like Kaushik Deb gets caught„ its no undoubt­edly is bad, but try­ing to accuse one per­son and spar­ing the rest sim­ply because they are BIG SHOTS and they have a res­i­dence in the US means no sense ! thats a mockery

  • there was Sci­ence paper retrac­tion in last year by Yale Sci­en­tist, Richard Flavell… not a sin­gle arti­cle or press even men­tioned it ! thats funny. why so mess with Deb?? its ter­ri­bly bad that he was fraud, but then Flavell paper was retracted due to an iden­ti­cal rea­son… fraud, why no one even write or talk about it?? is that due to strong hold over media and strong con­nec­tions that some­one escapes out and oth­ers are pros­e­cuted to their ulti­mate extent? It’s nasty pol­i­tics that kills every­thing and sadly to say, it has con­t­a­m­i­nated sci­ence terribly.

  • There are peo­ple like SIR Ian Wilmut who had no con­tri­bu­tions while cloning Dolly but got away with the name, fame and honor. Every­body now knows about the Indian sci­en­tist (Dr. Prim Singh, who was also racially dis­crim­i­nated), and a bunch of other sci­en­tist who have piti­tioned against Wilmut, after 10 long years.

    I am afraid this story is no different!!

    I also know that Deb actu­ally repro­duced data in front of exter­nal pro­fes­sors. And remind you sci­ence does not go by pictures..it goes by reproducibility.

    Deb should be strongly sup­ported for his work, and for what he found.