Stem cells under pressure
How and why they lie about stem cells
Dmitry Tselikov, Compulenta
The "paradigm shift", the "mess and irresponsibility": in just a couple of months, two articles that opened up simple ways to turn adult cells into stem cells transformed from epochal to dubious.
A medical revolution is expected from stem cell research, but something suspiciously often scientists are accused of dishonesty. In order to clarify the situation, New Scientist magazine anonymously interviewed thousands of specialists from around the world. More than 110 people responded. Some admitted that they were lying about the results of their studies, others complained about the unethical behavior of the management, others shifted responsibility to prestigious magazines. In general , the picture is as follows: this area of research is under strong pressure from society, waiting for a panacea, and there are scientists and administrators who are trying shamelessly to benefit from it.
We don't believe that the sweetest Haruko Obokata can lie! (Photo by EPA / RIKEN.)
Slightly more than half of the respondents believe that stem cell research is under closer supervision than other biomedical fields. "This is all because the consequences for clinical practice are more significant here," one of the scientists explained. Almost a fifth of the respondents admitted that it affects their work. Some said that as a result they are stricter about their business, while others said that they are in a hurry to find clinical application as soon as possible.
16% noted that they felt the need to send an article based on the results of an unfinished study or with unverified information. "It is necessary to publish in order to get funding," one of the respondents noted. "We have to cut corners." "This happens when we find out that competitors are going to publish the same thing," another stressed.
"Publish or die." This principle is not a metaphor. "Get a move on, otherwise you will miss the opportunity for career growth," one of the respondents formulated it this way.
Three said that colleagues or superiors persuaded them to agree to falsify data or commit another unethical act. Five answered in the affirmative to the question whether they were engaged in falsifications of data that were eventually published.
The heads of research teams, respondents say, do not always behave in good faith. "Sometimes they really like the results, and we are afraid to say that this data will be very difficult to reproduce," is one of the reviews. "Sometimes, when an article is disputed, its lead author has to justify himself, although he does not even really know its content," reads another.
Another problem is the incorrect interpretation of the results: "Inconvenient data are deliberately ignored, just to justify the conclusions that you want to make."
The results of the survey resemble the results of a study conducted in 2009 and covering all areas of science, recalls Ivan Oransky, co-founder of the website Retraction Watch, which monitors cases of recall of scientific papers. Then 2% confessed to falsification and fabrication of data, and in general, about one in three did not hide that at least once he was involved in some dark dealings.
But back to New Scientist. The journals also got it: "The review stage has turned into a platform for self-promotion." "Journals require descriptions of complex, expensive and time-consuming experiments, and they are not interested in proving the scientific nature of their conclusions."
They also scold journalists who have enough patience for only five minutes when they listen to the explanations of scientists. It was they, the researchers believe, who inflated the topic of stem cells and declared them a panacea.
Nevertheless (sigh of relief) the majority of respondents believe that this field is developing in the right direction, despite all the difficulties: "Yes, scandals happen, but let's not boo the entire field of research, so as not to accidentally throw the child out with water."
The disputed articles were published in the journal Nature, which likes to boast of a strict approach to the selection of material. The lead author of both is Haruko Obokata from the Center for Developmental Biology of the RIKEN Institute of Physico-Chemical Research in Kobe (Japan). The co-author of one of the papers, Charles Vacanti from Harvard Medical School (USA), published detailed instructions to help those wishing to reproduce the results. Kenneth Lee of the Chinese University of Hong Kong is blogging about his attempts to use them.
Mr. Vacanti believes that the results obtained by his group are too important to withdraw the article due to "minor inaccuracies".
Prepared based on the materials of NewScientist: Stem cell scientists reveal 'unethical' work pressures.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru31.03.2014