Recent accusations of fraudulent research at a prominent cancer institute have brought attention to the importance of honesty in scientific practices and the efforts of non-professionals in detecting manipulated images in published studies.

On January 22, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, which is affiliated with Harvard Medical School, announced its request for retractions and corrections of scientific papers due to issues identified by a British blogger in early January.

Sholto David, a 32-year-old blogger from Pontypridd, Wales, is a scientist and detective who specializes in identifying instances of image manipulation through copy and paste techniques in scientific publications.

There are other individuals besides him who are interested in examining pixels. There are also people who support maintaining scientific honesty and hold researchers and science journals accountable. They utilize specialized programs, large computer screens, and their sharp vision to identify altered, copied, and distorted images, as well as possible instances of plagiarism.

Examining the state of affairs at Dana-Farber and the investigators searching for careless mistakes and deliberate falsehoods.

On January 2nd, Sholto David shared questionable images from over 30 published papers authored by four scientists from Dana-Farber, including CEO Laurie Glimcher and COO William Hahn.

The researchers’ findings may have been falsely bolstered by multiple instances of duplicated segments within various images. The studies in question revolve around laboratory investigations into cell functions. One of these studies used samples of bone marrow collected from human participants.

The blog post mentioned issues identified by David and other individuals that had also been brought to light by investigators on PubPeer, a website that permits undisclosed feedback on academic articles.

On January 12, student reporters from The Harvard Crimson reported on the story, which was then covered by other news outlets. The recent investigation of plagiarism involving former Harvard president Claudine Gay, who stepped down earlier this year, further heightened interest in the matter.

Dana-Farber said it already had been looking into some of the problems before the blog post. By Jan. 22, the institution said it was in the process of requesting six retractions of published research and that another 31 papers warranted corrections.

Retractions are a significant matter. When a journal withdraws an article, it typically indicates that the research is significantly flawed, rendering the results unreliable.

According to Dr. Barrett Rollins, who oversees research integrity at Dana-Farber, the institution has a standard process for reviewing potential data errors and making necessary corrections. In response to concerns raised by blogger Sholto David, they have already taken swift and definitive action in 97% of the identified cases.

Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist from California, has been investigating for the past ten years. Her efforts have resulted in 1,133 retractions, 1,017 corrections, and 153 expressions of concern being published in scientific journals. She keeps track of the outcomes of her reports on a spreadsheet.

She has come across manipulated pictures of bacteria, cell cultures, and western blots, a laboratory method used to identify proteins.

Bik stated to The Associated Press that the purpose of science should be to uncover the truth. In 2016, she released an evaluation through the American Society for Microbiology which revealed that out of over 20,000 peer-reviewed papers, approximately 4% contained issues with images, with around half appearing to be deliberately manipulated.

Bik’s Patreon subscribers donate an average of $2,300 per month, and he also receives occasional honoraria from speaking engagements. According to David, Bik’s Patreon income has recently increased to $216 per month.

According to Ivan Oransky, a medical journalism professor at New York University and co-founder of the Retraction Watch blog, technology has simplified the process of detecting image manipulation and plagiarism. The investigators utilize software tools to analyze scientific papers and identify any issues.

Anonymous individuals are conducting investigations and sharing their discoveries using fake names. According to Oransky, they have significantly altered the traditional approach to scientific publishing.

“They desire improvement and progress in the field of science,” stated Oransky. “However, they are dissatisfied with the lack of interest from those in academia and publishing when it comes to correcting inaccuracies.” Additionally, there is worry about the decline of public confidence in science.

Bik mentioned that certain errors may be careless mistakes, such as incorrect labeling of images or accidentally selecting the wrong photo.

However, certain images appear to have been manipulated through the duplication, rotation, or flipping of sections. Researchers who are advancing in their careers or striving for tenure often feel compelled to publish their work. Some may deliberately fabricate data, fully aware that the peer review process, in which experts assess and provide feedback on a manuscript, is unlikely to detect any deceit.

Oransky stated that the ultimate goal is to have their work published. When the visuals do not align with the intended narrative, they are often made more visually appealing.

Scientific journals investigate errors brought to their attention but usually keep their processes confidential until they take action with a retraction or correction.

Several publications have acknowledged the concerns brought up in David’s blog post and are currently investigating the issue.

___

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group provides support to the Associated Press Health and Science Department. The AP is solely responsible for all of its content.

Source: wral.com