探花视频

Articles pulled after data fabrication in Cambridge DNA lab

Retractions in Nature and Science follow Abderrahmane Kaidi鈥檚 resignation from Bristol

Published on
April 12, 2019
Last updated
April 15, 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Articles in Science and Nature have been retracted after it emerged that data had been faked in one of the world鈥檚 leading DNA laboratories.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DNA researcher, between 2007 and 2013, and Professor Jackson was named as a co-author on both of the papers that have been retracted.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鈥檚 misconduct in research policy.

鈥淭he 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.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

鈥淭he university鈥檚 investigation did not identify any concerns regarding any of Dr Kaidi鈥檚 co-authors on these papers. The journals concerned have been informed of the outcome of the university investigation.鈥

The paper, published in 2010, was titled 鈥淗uman SIRT6 promotes DNA end resection through CtIP deacetylation鈥. The university said that it had concluded that 鈥渇alsification of research data鈥 had occurred.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

The second retracted article 鈥 鈥淜AT5m tyrosine phosphorylation couples chromatin sensing to ATM signalling鈥 鈥撀爓as published in in 2013. The retraction said that the paper had been withdrawn 鈥渢o correct the scientific literature, owing to issues with figure presentation and underlying data.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.鈥

Dr Kaidi resigned from Bristol last year after admitting 鈥渢o having fabricated research data to convince a collaborator in another institution that certain experiments had taken place, when this was not the case鈥, 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鈥檚 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.

鈥淚t can go on anywhere, for sure,鈥 said John Hardy, chair of molecular biology of neurological disease at UCL.

探花视频

ADVERTISEMENT

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聽owing to the pressure to 鈥渃ontinually produce exciting and novel results鈥.

鈥淭here is significantly more pressure on researchers at 鈥榬esearch-intensive鈥 institutions to come up with whizzy observations to support regular publications in high-impact journals that then lead to grant income,鈥 Dr Kolstoe said. 鈥淪uch 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.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a sad state of affairs because it ruins careers and leads to temptations to cheat. I鈥檓 convinced that this perverse incentive culture 鈥 and the commodification of novel results 鈥 within academia is mostly responsible for such misconduct.鈥

nick.mayo@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

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 鈥榩erverse incentives鈥 - they are certainly there but it鈥檚 unfair to the majority of scientists who face the same challenges and don鈥檛 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 鈥榥egative results鈥, and value the knowledge that comes from 鈥榝ailed鈥 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 鈥渃o-author鈥 and take credit but cleared of any wrong-doing when something goes awry. How can you be an 鈥渁uthor鈥 but not responsible of any subsequent issues of something you supposedly is an integral part of?

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT