Advertisement

Science retracts major Arabidopsis paper

Scientist acknowledges omitting data, but denies any impropriety

By | April 20, 2007

Four out of five authors of a Science paper that the journal called a "breakthrough of the year" in 2005 have retracted it, saying that the data it was based on could not be replicated. The study, which described the migration of mRNA to initiate flowering, was based on real-time PCR data, which researchers in the Umeå Plant Science Center lab where it had been performed found impossible to replicate. According to principle investigator Ove Nilsson, first author Tao Huang had manipulated data, removing certain points and giving increased weight to others. Huang, the only author not to agree to the retraction, maintains that the data omissions were valid and documented. "Although I can understand and respect Professor Ove Nilsson... I think the retraction for this paper should not happen, [and was] at least immature," Hwang wrote in an E-mail to The Scientist. The work has been cited in 54 papers according to the ISI Web of Science. "To some extent, some may have been misled," Takashi Araki, a professor at Kyoto University wrote in an E-mail to The Scientist. "Obviously these have been very difficult times for me and my group," said Nilsson, "And of course, it's a big set-back for the Arabidposis part of our research." But he says his lab has continued to publish on flowering in trees, and found no errors in other subsequent papers. "People realize that we have handled this according to the books. We had discovered this ourselves and we took the necessary steps to correct it," Nilsson said. For 70 years scientists have known that a signal, the so called florigen, travels from the leaves, which detect such changes as temperature and day-length, to the growing tip of the plant where it initiates flowering, but they hadn't known what that agent was. In August 2005, Huang et al. reported that mRNA of the flowering locus T, or FT gene, travels to the tips, where it is transcribed into FT protein to signal flowering. When the paper came out, it was well received. Other studies had already shown that plants used RNA in signaling, so when the paper emerged implicating the FT mRNA as a moving element "it was not that surprising," said Brian Ayre a plant biologist at the University of North Texas. But, he said, this retraction could cause a bit of backpeddling for some in the field, since the FT mRNA theory had already made it into several prominent plant textbooks. Araki said that he and his group were suspicious of the finding when it was first published in part because his group's results showed that the FT protein, rather than mRNA was actually the moving element and partly because of "very small statistical errors in their real-time PCR data," he said. He also mentioned that "the paper seemed to fit too well with the popular textbook knowledge." Two papers published online in Science this week, one authored by Laurent Corbesier et al, at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, and another by a Shojiro Tamaki et al, from the Nara Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, indeed indicate that the elusive florigen is the protein product of the FT gene, rather than mRNA. Corbesier's work in Arabidopsis and Tamaki's work in rice both bolster previous work in tomatoes which did not find mRNA, and implicated the potential use of proteins, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Eliezer Lifschitz. Nilsson told The Scientist he first discovered an anomaly after Huang, a visiting scientist, left his lab to return to China this past September. Another student and a postdoc, wishing to continue Huang's work found data points marked in red that had been removed from the final analysis. Nilsson's lab was unable to reproduce the data and contacted Umeå University which resulted in both an internal and external investigation. Huang said the removed data points were "irrelevant to the experiment," because variable temperatures of a heating plate rendered certain data points invalid. He said he had circulated his results for review, with the anomalous data points marked in red, before he left the lab. He wrote in an E-mail, "None of my fellow labmates thought it was improper to exclude those irrelevant samples at that time." He also mentioned that he had not been contacted by members of the external investigation. Lars Rask, a professor at the University of Uppsala who was one of the two people who conducted the external evaluation, confirmed that Huang was not interviewed. Instead, the committee evaluated correspondence between Huang and Nilsson after Huang's departure. In an E-mail to The Scientist, Rask wrote, "As far as we could tell from the E-mails, [Huang] realized that there were potential problems in the experiments carried out." Despite the controversy surrounding Huang's research, the field as a whole may not be tremendously affected. The original Huang paper had not discounted the possibility of an FT protein playing a role. "That left the door wide open," said Colin Turnbull, a co-author of the Corbesier paper. "All we're trying to do as a community is move forward. And FT is definitely important and the fact that it's a protein is just as exciting as if it had been RNA," he said. By Edyta Zielinska mail@the-scientist.com Links within this article Huang T, et al, "The mRNA of the Arabidopsis gene FT moves from leaf to shoot apex and induces flowering." Science. September 9, 2005 http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/16099949 B. Maher, "How it works: Real-time PCR" The Scientist, December 2006 http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/36978 Ove Nilsson http://www.upsc.se/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2807&Itemid=43 Böhlenius H, et al, "Letters: retraction." Science. April 19, 2007. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5823/367b B.A. Palevitz, "Forging Ahead on Arabidopsis," The Scientist, October 29, 2001 http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/12675 ISI Web Of Science 'http://scientific.thomson.com/products/wos Takashi Araki http://cosmos.bot.kyoto-u.ac.jp/Araki-Lab/English/engl_index.html I. Oransky, "Lights, Locus, Flower!" The Scientist, March 29th, 2004 http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/14557 Kim M, et al, "Developmental Changes Due to Long-Distance Movement of a Homeobox Fusion Transcript in Tomato." Science. July 13, 2001 http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/11452121 Brian Ayre 'http://www.biol.unt.edu/~bgayre/myweb Plant Physiology, Fourth Edition Ed Lincoln Taiz and Eduardo Zeiger 'http://www.amazon.com/Plant-Physiology-Lincoln-Taiz/dp/0878938230/ref=sr_1_1/103-1157775-9540625?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177014967&sr=8-1 Tamaki S, et al, "Hd3a protein is a mobile flowering signal in rice," Science. April 19, 2007. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1141753 Corbesier L, et al, "FT protein movement contributes to long-distance signaling in floral induction of Arabidopsis." Science. April 19, 2007. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1141752 Lifschitz E, et al, "The tomato FT ortholog triggers systemic signals that regulate growth and flowering and substitute for diverse environmental stimuli." Proc Natl Acad Sci, 103:398-403, April 18, 2006 http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/16606827 Lars Rask http://www.imbim.uu.se/forskning/raskresearch.html

Comments

Avatar of: derfla

derfla

Posts: 1

August 19, 2007

If Ove Nilsson chooses to shift the blame from his faulty supervision of the work recently retracted from Science to some fictional deficiencies of his Chinese post-doc, then I am truly ashamed for Sweden. In contrast, if Nilsson will opt to take his full responsibility by stepping down from his current position and also declining the upcoming Wallenberg award, he should be nominated for a first Nobel Prize in Ethics.
Avatar of: rocky

rocky

Posts: 1

August 19, 2007

As a senior investigator in a national research institute, I know exactly the game. On the one hand, it is the Brodie type of lab boss if there is credit to grab. Before submitting for publication Axelrod´s p450 enzyme breakthru discovery, Brodie told his personnel: authorship goes alphabetically, ...except that I go first. Accordingly, Axelrod, the actual discoverer, had to go second. Although Julie (that was how Axelrod was called by his labmates) could go on to collect his Nobel for another discovery later on, it could not wipe out the earlier suffered first authorship scoop. On the other hand, if there is some error surfacing post-publication, it is the Nilsson type of lab chief who chickens out and looks for (Asian) post-doc scapegoats.\nThus, although I do not entirely disagree with the contributor from Sweden (derfla) that, in some cases, having misbehaving peers repent their misconduct through self-imposed negative consequences may send out the right message, I still advocate as a general rule the institution and implementation of more effective penalties not only for such misdeeds as data fabrication and falsification, but also for more common infringements such as the misappropriation of credit for a given scientific discovery. Only a set of binding rules will effectively deter scientists, especially those formally directing a research lab, from committing misconduct.
Avatar of: Global citizen

Global citizen

Posts: 1

August 22, 2007

So far Nilsson, Science and AAAS have all pretended of seeing nothing and hearing nothing despite this world-wide condemnation on the high-level scientific misconduct and the strongest outcry ever expressed in the scientific history for justice in scientific ethics. \nNow the award ceremony is approaching, the only chance for enforcing ethic standard in science is for the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation to cancel the planned ceremony and to start a formal and thorough investigation. Then, depending on the outcome of that investigation (which should be made public), the Foundation can resume the award ceremony if Nilsson is found of guilty-free or take back the award if Nilsson is indeed guilty.\nThis prudent action is necessary not only because it is good for setting up a good example for maintaining a solid foundation of ethical scientific research but also because it may save the King of Sweden from a major public embarrassment.\n

August 22, 2007

Unofficially the Editor-in-Chief of Science has been regarded as a King in science because his like or dislike affect the trends of scientific research in the days of publish or perish and impact factors count more than discoveries. Thus, despite the fact that Science has been the No. 1 journal/magazine in the world in publishing retractions and has been repeated infected with the most ?spectacular? scandals in scientific history, its Editor-in-Chief has never been blamed for anything. As a matter of fact, he has suppressed publication of any criticisms aimed at himself and his editorial team.\n\nThe so-called ?external? investigation on the editorial process handling the famous Hwang stem cell research as well as publishing scandal in Science actually praised Science and made its Editor-in-Chief so delighted that he published an only Editorial he has written on Hwang?s publishing scandal due to Science?s deficiency, too. Now with more retractions since then and with a much more clear case of likely editorial misconduct in Science, this same Editor-in-Chief has not only rejected many submissions from scientists and editors of other journals but also totally ignored the reports and comments in this well-established and reputable scientific magazine.\n\nThus, considering the huge impact of the Nilsson case to global scientific community and the arrogance of the king of science, it may be necessary for the King of Sweden to write directly to the Editor-in-Chief of Science. The King of Sweden should use his political power and legal authority to press the king of science to do a through internal investigation on the editorial handling of the later-submitted-but-earlier-published Nilsson paper. The results of this internal investigation should be reported to the King of Sweden and, if possible and should be, the whole world.\n\nIf the King of science is reluctant to do this essential duty, then he should be pressed to step down immediately and let other capable person to take his position.\n

August 22, 2007

It is really amazing how human civilization has progressed so far!\n\nNilsson cheated on Science for taking a sole discovering role (as evidenced by his sole corresponding author title and his sole recipient status of the Wallenberg Prize) and then the world for taking no scientific responsibility for the later ?discovery?-turned ?fakery? (as evidenced by his sole blame for all the misconduct to a single student of him). However, his repeated cheating was not even officially condemned at all, despite the overwhelming grass-root complains.\n\nNow he may continue his cheating all the way up to the King of Sweden. If he dares to do that, he will eventually collect a severe punishment because, with a good heritage from the medieval time, I do not believe that the King of Sweden would like being cheated.\n

August 22, 2007

I suggest Swedish government to modernize the palace of its King so that it will have real-time access to the global information circulated around the world by the Internet (if the palace is not so equipped now). In this way, The King will have some direct perception on the real world rather than relying solely on some reports from his subordinates.\n\n\n\nIf the King of Sweden has read so many complaints against the misconduct by Nilsson, he may even refuse to present the Wallenberg Prize to Nilsson even if Nilsson made those reported discoveries.\n
Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 4

August 22, 2007

Dear Readers of The Scientists:\n\nAs the editor-in-chief of Scientific Ethics which has provided the most in-depth coverage of the Nilsson-Science Gate publishing scandal I wish to let your know that I have filed a formal letter protesting the awarding of the 2007 Marcus Wallenberg Prize to Ove Nilsson and requesting a formal investigations on all the alleged misconduct by Nilsson. This letter was already received by the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.\n\nHere I just wish to thank everyone for making great contributions to science by courageously expressing your frank opinions and to praise The Scientist for providing such an uncensored communication platform. I believe that history will remember this Nilsson-Science Gate incidence not only as a specific case of public protest against an individual misconducting scientist but a general declaration of a global war against the universal scientific corruption.\n\nRegardless the outcome of this specific case, a grass-root movement is now formed and will spread out to every corner of scientific enterprise. This movement will drive unethical ?scientists? out of their money-making business and return an ethical environment for moral scientists to make their discoveries and, more importantly, communicate their discoveries freely without any worry of being robbed out of their deserved credit.\n\nSincerely yours,\n\nShi V. Liu MD PhD\nEditor, Scientific Ethics (http://im1.biz)\nApex, NC 27502 USA\nSVL8SE@im1.biz\n
Avatar of: Table

Table

Posts: 1

August 30, 2007

Dr. Liu, please post the final outcome on this page.
Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 4

August 31, 2007

A formal protesting letter was filed to the Marcus Wallenberg Prize selection committee and the Board of Directors for the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation. Let us wait to see what action will be taken by them and what decision will be made by them.\n\nMeanwhile, pressure on Science will be built continuously until it gives an answer on its very likely editorial misconduct.\n
Avatar of: public majority

public majority

Posts: 1

September 28, 2007

Has the planned award ceremoney taken place? Why there is no news on it in the Internet?\nWas the ceremony put on hold? Is there an investigation going on?\nWhat is Nilsson doing now for science? Has he found out whether the retracted publication is really a lie based on "faked" data or a correct conclusion despite the mamipulation of the data?\nWhen will Nilsson and Science tell the public how his paper was published in advance of the other earlier submitted and accepted papers?\nPlease do not let public hunger for results on these key questions! \n
Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 1

September 29, 2007

It has been said that if your paper is not published in CNS (Cell, Nature and Science) then your discovery is not significant.\n\nNow I wish to say that if your misconduct is not contained in a publication in the CNS then your misconduct is not a high-level misconduct.\n\nWhy would scientists wish to publish in the CNS? It is because they have high impact factors.\n\nWhy would ?scientists? wish to commit high-level misconduct? It is because high-level misconduct is often immune from punishment which is focused largely on data manipulation-type low-level misconduct.\n\nHowever, as stated Bruce Alberts and Kenneth Shine (Science 266: 1660-1661, 1994), ?even more damaging to the integrity of science are those behaviors that do not rise to the level of misconduct but nevertheless violate values held in common by the scientific community?. Why? They pointed out that ?by eroding the ethical foundations of research, the questionable behaviors can create an environment in which blatant misconduct in science becomes more likely?\n\nMore than a decade has passed since Alberts and Shine raised the concern for those more damaging behaviors. How is the situation now?\n\nI must say that the situation has become even worse!\n\nNot only those more harmful behaviors are still not considered even as misconducts but also those high-level misconducts dominated the central nerve system of modern scientific publishing.\n\nAs the impact factor scam becomes widely spread (Sci. Ethics 1: 72-73, 2006) and captures all scientists as its publication slave (EMBO Report 8: 792-793, 2007) the demand for publishing in CNS has also greatly increased. Thus, while scientists have long known that CNS are just some ?hot-news? journals or ?the tabloids?, as described in a great book ?The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science?, many of them still feel pressured to submit their research finding for publication by these journals even if history has often shown that these journals are anti-revolutionary in repeatedly rejecting truly great scientific discoveries (Logical Biol. 5: 279-286, 2005).\n\nIf publishing research finding especially revolutionary science is difficult in CNS because they are the ?normal science? journals (Medical Hypotheses 69: 967-969, 2007), then it is even more difficult to criticize the flawed papers and even outright cheatings contained in CNS.\n\nThe tight closure of the Nilsson-Science-Gate to public demand of a revelation of a high-level misconduct is just a tip of huge iceberg which has frozen scientific communication into some dark age of censorship and suppression. Under the ?collective? ban of CNS, not only revolutionary science is deprived its right for communicating to deserved readership but also some credit rubbers become glorified.\n\nI wish that all scientists and public laymen read the following truth-revealing publications:\n\n1. An Irresponsible and Non-Responsive Cell for Cell Research (Sci. Ethics 2: 86-91, 2007) \n HTM (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A6_Cell.htm) \n PDF (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A6_Cell.pdf)\n\n2. Nature's Instinct of Self-Protection (Sci. Ethics 2: 92-93, 2007)\n HTM (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A7_NatureProtection.htm) \n PDF (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A7_NatureProtection.pdf)\n\n3. Science's Unscientific Way of Handling Criticism (Sci. Ethics 2: 79-85, 2007)\n HTM (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A8_UnscientificScience.htm) \n PDF (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A8_UnscientificScience.pdf)\n\n4. Dissecting the Mind Setting of "Top" Journals in Treating Criticisms and Exposing Their Bad Habits in Scientific Publishing (Top Watch 2: 54-56, 2007)\n HTM (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/TW2007V2N2A9_CNS.htm) \n PDF (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/TW2007V2N2A9_CNS.pdf)\n\n5. This Outrageous Lie Has Got to Stop! (Sci. Ethics 2: 94-95, 2007)\n HTM (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A5_StopLie.htm) \n PDF (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A5_StopLie.pdf)\n\n6. The Dark Side of Amar Klar (Sci. Ethics 2: 96-101, 2007)\n HTM (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A9_Klar.htm) \n PDF (http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N3A9_Klar.pdf)\n\nI wish all scientists to realize that CNS are not just some high impact factor journals but also high retraction journals (Sci. Ethics 1: 91-93, 2006). Their high retraction rates are not due to more post-publication scrutiny because many such criticisms are suppressed by these journals and thus their publications stood despite their flaws (EMBO Report 8: 792-793, 2007). Thus, it is time to perform some surgery on this central nerve system of scientific publishing!\n\nRichard Smith, previously the editor of British Medical Journal, stated in his Commentary ?Reinventing the Biomedical Journal? (J. Neurosci. 26: 9837-9838, 2006) that ?Often the impact factor of the journal ? is wholly unscientific? and ?Most of them [journals] would die, which would be a great relief?. He even envisioned that ?Once the electronic age sweeps through, the journals will be very different?. \n\nLet us work together to get rid off the outdated and even corrupted CNS and usher in a new era of scientific publishing.\n\nShi V. Liu, Truthfinding Cyberpress (http://im1.biz)\n
Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 1

October 6, 2007

Many people have asked me what the status is on the protest against Ove Nilsson?s winning of the 2007 Marcus Wallenberg Prize. I am also wondered about the outcome of my protest submitted to the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation.\n\nNow the planned time for the 2007 Marcus Wallenberg Prize awarding ceremony has passed. But so far I have not seen any news about this ceremony or received any outcome notice for my protest.\n\nSince I submitted a formal protest on August 19, 2007 to the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation against its awarding to Ove Nilsson I have received just a short response on August 22 (only after further inquiry) from an Assistant acknowledging the reception of my protest. She said that ?[W]e will get back to you in due course?.\n\nOn October 5, 2007, I emailed to that Assistant asking for the status of the evaluation of my protest by the Foundation. So far I have not received any response.\n\nApparently, the scheduled awarding ceremony was cancelled and thus the face of the King was saved from a major embarrassment. Also apparently, the service for a justice in science has been delayed. But the question is: will the justice be denied?\n\nI wish remind Marcus Wallenberg Foundation that any inaction on this protest is an irresponsible behavior. Silencing over a misconduct is a support for that misconduct!\n
Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 12

October 12, 2007

Nilsson and Science have been pressed to reveal their deals in the Nilsson-Science-gate incidence of a high-level misconduct in science. However, so far they both have kept their mouths tightly closed despite the huge public demand on their revelation of the truth. The Marcus Wallenberg Foundation which gave Nilsson a prize received a formal complaint and issued a reply that it will inform me the outcome of its evaluation in the due course. However, so far I have not seen any sign of a due course being taken.\nMeanwhile it is not known whether Nilsson has made any experimental observations that will settle his "misconception" claimed in the retraction of his breakthrough finding published by Science.\nApparently Nilsson, Science and other related parties have taken a "silencing to nill" strategy so that their misconduct will be less known. However, I wish to tell them that it will not work for the long run because they are now under life-time watch of some alternative routes of scientific communication.\nHistory will record this Nilsson-Science-gate incidence as a typical high-level misconduct in scientific research.
Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 32

November 2, 2007

Nature just published an Editorial "Accountability of authors" and posted it (by Editor Maxine Clarke) on Nature's blog "Nautilus". There were eight comments already posted there when I submitted my comment on November 1, 2007. However, after submission of my comment which showed a link to the Nilsson's high-level misconduct of grabbing all credit but denying all the responsibility, not only I did not see my comment appearing but also I found that the existing comments were removed. On November 2nd, the blogging was essentially unplugged and the number of the comments is amazingly reset to zero! Speaking of censorship and publishing misconduct, Nature is really on top of the world. Speaking of publishing misconduct, would the alteration of a publishing history be a misconduct?\n\n
Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 4

November 8, 2007

On November 6, 2007 Marcus Wallenberg Foundation finally sent me an official response on my protest (on behalf of readers of Scientific Ethics) against the award of MWP award to Ove Nilsson. \n\nThe response stated that ?the Board is content, after rigorous investigation that Professor Nilsson is indeed worthy of the Prize and it will be awarded later this month?. The response argued that ?the original nomination of Professor Nilsson referred to several components of his research of which the ?messenger? story was only one ? the retraction of the paper in Science did not reduce the case for the award of the Prize??.\n\nHowever, I wish readers to read the following article just published in Scientific Ethics (http://im1.biz) to see if MWF?s conclusion is correct and, if MWF itself has committed some misconduct.\n\nWhy Did MWF Alter Its Award Announcement?\n− Revelation of a New High-Level Misconduct\n\nhttp://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N4A3_MWF.htm\n\nhttp://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N4A3_MWF.pdf\n
Avatar of: Shi V. Liu

Shi V. Liu

Posts: 4

November 8, 2007

Towards the Goal of Maintaining Integrity and Ethics in Science and Society\n- An Open Letter to the King of Sweden\n\nYour Royal Highness:\n\nRecently, a highly worrying scandal has touched both Swedish and world science. Ove Nilsson, a Swedish citizen and professor at Umea University, has retracted a highly publicized publication that initially appeared in the established scientific journal Science. Although being primarily responsible for this mischief since Nilsson was the laboratory director for the work now retracted, he chose to put all the blame on his Chinese post-doc Tao Huang. On behalf of the readership of Scientific Ethics, I am now addressing you in the sincere wish that, similar to the classic role of a king both in fiction and reality as being the most judicious person in a country, you as the King of Sweden will bring light in this affair such that the noble and truthful pursuit of scientific research around the world, as a crucial endeavor of the entire society, will not suffer further damage.\n\nThe misconduct was initially exposed in an open dispute between Nilsson ? the corresponding author for taking all the credit of a major "discovery" and then the non-corresponding author for denying any role in a major "fakery" and Huang ? the non-corresponding author for making the discovery and still a responsive author for defending his data processing over the retraction of the so-called "third most important breakthrough" in Science in 2005. The misconduct includes Nilsson's unethical acquisition of inside information on his scientific competitors and then his strong push of his research lab into making "earlier" discovery for "first" publication.\n\nA formal protest was sent to Marcus Wallenberg Foundation (MWF) asking it to perform a thorough investigation on this Nilsson-Science gate case and release the result of this investigation to public. However, not only MWF did not perform such an investigation, it has also engaged in repeated alterations of its original award announcement so that the emphasis of the now retracted 2005 "breakthrough discovery" is nowhere to be found in the new announcement still bearing the original date. MWF now claimed that any other single discovery made by Nilsson is worthy of the Marcus Wallenberg Price (MWP). However, everyone who read the original announcement knows why Nilsson was chosen for the award. The history alteration misconduct by MWF is now fully exposed and the whole case is now called the Nilsson-Science-MWF gate.\n\nIn my letter to MWF I urged them not putting you into an uncomfortable position by asking you to present the award to Nilsson. Unfortunately, this embarrassing moment is likely to come because MWF stated that the award ceremony will still be held later this month. Thus, in order to present this from happening, I plea you to take a close look at this issue and ask both Nilsson and MWF to provide you their answers to the questions asked by international scientists before you will agree to attend the award ceremony.\n\nIn former times, a King used to be the ultimate judge over any major and minor issues in his country. Although such judgment is now normally handled by a democratic judicial system I wish you can actively aid in this process in your quality as an independent and just sovereign for the benefit of (young) scientists who need (ethical) orientation and positive examples/role models as well as for the purpose of genuine progress in both science and society as a whole.\n\nSincerely yours,\n\nShi V. Liu\nEditor-in-Chief, Scientific Ethics (http://im1.biz)\nSVL8SE@im1.biz\n
Avatar of: Shi Liu

Shi Liu

Posts: 12

December 3, 2007

On November 13, 2007 the Swedish King presented the Marcus Wallenberg Prize (MWP) to Ove Nilsson. Mr. Marcus Wallenberg, Chairman of the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation (MWF), praised Nilsson for gaining fundamental knowledge that will translate into business opportunities for the future forest industry (1).\n\nHowever, Nilsson so far has refused to answer some basic questions on how his most important "discovery" was made? (2) MWF also failed to ask Nilsson some tough questions to find out what role he actually played in "his" research (3-4). More curiously, to save a medal for Nilsson and to cheat on the King, MWF has resorted to an alteration of history (5).\n\nThe grand award ceremony might have some shining moments especially when it was attended by a King. However, that evil-prevailing day is one dark day in science.\n\nNilsson won some unethical money. Will he still be able to do any ethical research?\n\nFull-length version free at\nhttp://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2007V2N4A4_DarkDay.htm
Avatar of: ufi

ufi

Posts: 2

December 3, 2007

According to rumors from Umea, the "hero" was first exposed by some postdoc. The postdoc found in lab journals omitted points and accused Nilsson of fraud. He send letter directly to Stockholm but in this case it did not worked as official accusation as only rector could contact main officials directly. What hero did after that we all already know...
Avatar of: fraudKill

fraudKill

Posts: 2

December 3, 2007

According to rumors from Umea, the red points in lab journal were discovered by some postdoc (not swedish) who accused Nilsson of fraud. Postdoc sent to Stockholm some report but this had no legal power since only rector has the right to contact swedish reseacrh council for ethical questions. Anyway, scandal was started and we kow how "hero" went out of situation

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Rainin Instrument
Rainin Instrument
Advertisement
PITTCON
PITTCON
Life Technologies