Technical issues provoke concern over biology paper (results not reproduced)

news@nature.com ^ | 6 November 2006 | Erika Check

[neverdem]

Close window

Published online: 6 November 2006; | doi:10.1038/news061106-13

Technical issues provoke concern over biology paper

Embryo results prompt editorial note in Science.

Erika Check

Biologists are divided on when the fates of cells in an embryo are decided. SPL

Nature, which publishes a Corrigendum on research from 1993 in this week's issue (see 'Data handling causes image problem for top lab'), isn't the only leading journal to put out an editorial note in recent weeks. On 27 October, Science printed an 'expression of concern'¹ about a developmental-biology paper published in the journal in February². The short statement said that "there is an ongoing investigation of this study by the University of Missouri", home of the research team, and that "the results reported therein may not be reliable".

The paper claimed that a gene called Cdx2 was expressed in certain cells in mouse embryos after their first division, and that those expressing this gene went on to become specialized tissue. Only the cells that did not express Cdx2 went on to form the various cell types that make up the body. The finding was important, because there is a debate among developmental biologists about whether mammal embryos determine the fate of their cells at such an early stage.

Many in the field rushed to try to replicate the result; at least two contacted by Nature could not. "It was a shocking result, but that didn't immediately mean it was wrong," says Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz of the University of Cambridge, UK, who tried and failed to replicate the work. "It was very different from the result of our lab and most of the people in the field that I know. But we didn't know whether this was a mistake, or some absolutely amazing conditions, which made embryos behave in a different way in their hands."

Robert Hall, associate vice-chancellor for research at the University of Missouri at Columbia, confirmed that the university convened an investigation into the paper this spring. He would not say what triggered the investigation, which he anticipates should finish this winter. But Donald Kennedy, the editor-in-chief at Science, confirmed that the journalce received "concerns and a draft technical comment" about the paper from other investigators, and had forwarded them to the university. The journal has published an expression of concern once before — last December, after an investigation found that South Korean cloner Woo Suk Hwang had fabricated data in papers related to stem-cell research.

The current paper's senior author, Michael Roberts, says that this paper is the only one under investigation. None of Roberts' three co-authors responded to e-mail enquiries from Nature. When asked whether he stood by the paper, Roberts said: "I'm not going to comment on the conclusions."

Visit our newsblog to read and post comments about this story.

	Top

References

1. Kennedy D., et al. Science, 314. 592 (2006).
2. Deb D., et al. Science, 311. 992–996 (2006).

	Top

Story from news@nature.com:
http://news.nature.com//news/2006/061106/061106-13.html

		© 2006 Nature Publishing Group | Privacy policy

[neverdem]

Superbug brought back by Iraq war casualties

Adult Stem Cells Used to Treat Emergency Heart Attack Patients

Ann Coulter on Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

[Grampa Dave]

Get used to leftr wing bs coming out of so called science centers/labs after the election.

BS like this will be standard if the bs supports what the left wing is pushing from global warming to stem cells curing dead people.

Real scientists daring to publish the truth will lose grants and may end up with trumped up charges and have to do a Rummy to avoid long and expensive trials.

[Criminal Number 18F]

ND: thanks for this interesting post. Keep up the good work!

Dave: Scientists are as vulnerable as anybody to the usual human emotional pulls and pushes... there is a long-standing system in place to handle irregular results. Remember that the "BS" (if that's what it is) was not exposed by any radical investigation but just science done in the normal way -- scientists, specialists in the field, trying to duplicate an experiment that didn't match their previous experience. That's one reason scientific research is published... "Here's what I got. What did you get, same thing? No? Hmmm... why not? WHat do we try now?"

One of the things about science, done properly, is that you don't defend your results if they are not repeatable or otherwise disproven. The expression is, "if the data don't support your theory, discard the theory and believe the data." If those of us in other walks of life were as willing to throw out disproven beliefs as scientists are (or are supposed to be, anyway), we'd all be better off.

It's irregular but not unheard of for scientists to close a factual gap in their research data with BS, but then when others in the field try to duplicate the results, they get skunked... so it's rather hard to get away with.

Time will tell if there was some error in the initial report, the reproduction attempt, or if there actually was some attempt to deceive. If it is the latter it means disgrace and deep unemployment for the malefactor.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks.

Can a study be replicated in another lab with different lab people/scientists or doctors.

If it is a new medicine, again are the results replicated in the real world.