The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a prestigious Boston-based institution affiliated with Harvard Medical School, is under scrutiny after a blogger and biologist raised allegations of errors ranging from sloppiness to “really serious concerns” in several studies. The institute, responding to the critique, has requested the retraction of six studies and corrections in 31 other papers.
The controversy revolves around image duplications and manipulations in biomedical research, similar to concerns raised against former Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne last year. The allegations came to light when biologist and blogger Sholto David highlighted problems in multiple studies conducted primarily by Dana-Farber researchers.
In early January, David detailed image duplications and potential manipulations in dozens of papers, stating in a blog post that research from top scientists at the institute “appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading.”
Dr. Barrett Rollins, the institute's integrity research officer, responded, stating that Dana-Farber scientists had requested the retraction of six manuscripts, corrections in 31 manuscripts, and one manuscript remained under examination. Rollins noted that some of the papers flagged by David had already surfaced in ongoing reviews conducted previously by the institute.
Rollins emphasized, “The presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author's intent to deceive.” He added that errors are often unintentional and do not necessarily indicate misconduct.
Ellen Berlin, communications director at Dana-Farber, clarified that the allegations concerned pure or basic science, not studies leading to cancer drug approvals. Berlin reassured that cancer treatment is not impacted by the review of Dana-Farber's research papers.
Sholto David, among several scientists scrutinizing journal articles for errors or fabrications, investigated Dana-Farber after a prior investigation into a Columbia University surgeon led him to flaws in the work of collaborators, drawing his attention to Dana-Farber's leadership team.
The allegations include image errors, some of which David suggests could be explained by sloppy copy-paste work or mix-ups, while others involve more complex issues such as stretched or rotated images. Dana-Farber acknowledged the errors but asserted that not all discrepancies necessarily indicate intentional deception.
The criticism of Dana-Farber underscores the broader issue of research misconduct, scientific integrity, and the role of artificial intelligence in detecting errors. Image manipulation has been a focal point, with concerns raised about a culture incentivizing shortcuts or cheating in top academic institutions.
AI tools, such as ImageTwin, are playing a role in identifying potential misconduct. ImageTwin, an artificial intelligence-powered software, can analyze images in studies, compare them, and check against a vast database of scientific images. The software, commercially available since 2021, aims to assist institutions in identifying problems before publication.