Advertisement
RayBiotech
RayBiotech

St. Jude postdoc faked images

A former postdoctoral researcher at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital fudged images published in two papers, one of which has since been retracted.

By | June 22, 2011

Alveolar rhabdoymyosarcoma cellsWIKIMEDIA COMMONS, MAHESHA VANKALAKUNTI ET AL.

A cancer biologist falsified images in two papers, the Office of Research Integrity reported earlier this month (June 9).

According to the notice, Philippe Bois, a former postdoctoral student in biochemistry at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, used misleading data for one image in a 2005 Journal of Cell Biology paper and completely faked another image in a Molecular and Cellular Biology article published the same year. In the first paper, Bois used a Western blot to suggest that the tumor suppressor gene, FOX01A, was not expressed in biopsies of a rare type of muscle cancer called alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, even though other blots showed evidence of expression, the ORI found.  In the second paper, Bois fabricated gel electrophoresis data on proteins that help orchestrate the restructuring of the actin cytoskeleton during cellular adhesion.

Problems were initially found in the MCB paper, which he published while in the lab of John Cleveland, who was also at St. Jude at the time and is now the chair of the cancer biology department at the Scripps Research Institute in Florida. The ORI found that Bois falsified an image, then cast blame on a graduate student in the same lab. MCB issued a correction in 2007, though the paper’s overall findings were intact.

Once his former advisor at St. Jude, geneticist Gerard Grosveld, learned that Bois had faked data while working under Cleveland, he went back over three years of results from the time Bois spent in his own lab, and found experimental data in Bois’s lab notebook that did not support the JCB paper’s conclusion that FOX01A acted as a tumor suppressor. Grosveld brought the errors to the journal’s attention, and the paper was retracted in May 2007, after being cited 7 times, according to ISI.

“It was an absolute low point in my scientific career,” Grosveld said.

While JCB was only out for five months before it was retracted, the falsifications derailed the research of another graduate student in Grosevld's lab who was following up on Bois’s findings, Grosveld said. “My graduate student spent a whole year frustrated to the bone because he couldn’t replicate any of it.”

Janet Shipley, a sarcoma pathologist at the Institute of Cancer Research in England, cited the JCB paper in a 2006 review in the Journal of Clinical Pathology. She credits the co-authors for withdrawing the paper so quickly. “Due to the timing, I do not think that the paper had a major impact in the field.”

Still, Shipley was initially shocked by the withdrawal. But “when we subsequently did similar blots for another reason it was indeed clear how flawed the premise was,” she said.

Bois, who is now an assistant professor at the Scripps Research Institute in Florida, refused to accept a settlement and instead spent years fighting the ORI’s findings in court.  Last month a judge declined to hear Bois’s appeal because he had not provided substantive evidence to dispute the agency’s findings. “There were a lot of objections about process, but they were not considered relevant,” said John Dahlberg, the director of the office’s Division of Investigative Oversight. The final decision took so long in part because Bois refused to come to an agreement with ORI and then disputed their findings, he said.

In an email, Bois said he would not comment due to ongoing legal proceedings.

As a result of the ORI’s findings, Bois is barred from receiving federal grant money and from serving in any advisory capacity to the US Public Health Service (PHS) for three years.

Advertisement

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Vidak07874

Anonymous

June 22, 2011

woow

Avatar of: anonpostdoc

Anonymous

June 22, 2011

My supervisor recently uncovered 55 falsified figures across more than 10 papers by a single author in the cancer field.  Journal editors have been informed and last week the first was retracted.  I guess you'll be reading about it all soon.

Avatar of: ATRusso

ATRusso

Posts: 5

June 22, 2011

Assistant professor?  This guy should be driving a taxi!!  Science is not a quest to prove your pet theory, it is a search for the TRUTH, even if you do not like what you find.  Disgusting!

Avatar of: Neil Toner

Anonymous

June 22, 2011

It makes one worry about what is not caught by the scientific community.

I feel for the honest researchers, especially those directly involved who's trust was not rewarded very kindly.

Avatar of: Ellen Hunt

Ellen Hunt

Posts: 74

June 22, 2011

This is one of many instances I know of in the last 15 years that features a con-man getting a professorship BECAUSE he is a con-man. This is fraud, pure and simple. The University of Florida should file criminal fraud charges against him and sue him for all salary paid to him plus the lab startup costs they staked him. The ranks of the generation of scientists coming of age now are chock full of lying, cheating con-men. And they have got to learn that there is a downside.

There is no real penalty now for being a science con-man. Cut off from NIH for 3 years? What a joke!

But there is a penalty for NOT being a con. If you make up garbage that makes a splash you get hired as a hot-shot professor. If you don't make stuff up you get passed over. Chances are, you won't get caught for a while. This guy was a con-man and stupid. That's why he got caught.

Plus, most of these jackals are sociopaths who just don't care if they are lying. So they present all the social signals to the world that we normally depend on to tell if someone is lying. Like Bernie Madoff, they slink their smarmy their way into our social circles and suck the blood out of us. They are parasitic worms in the body of science.

Come on Florida! Do the right thing! Nail this jackal to the wall and make an example of him. Ruin him and put him in prison where he belongs! Make sure the entire world knows about it! Scare the other smarmy little parasites lurking in labs out of science!

Avatar of: Natlover

Natlover

Posts: 1

June 22, 2011

This is a joke. People are falsifying data and publishing in high impact or low impact journal. My questions are how many of them get caught? Not many, I guess  but they produced an environement where publishing papers have become a joke. It affects those honest post-docs and students who take long-time to confirm and publish their findings. They though do not stand a chance for jobs as their publication profile would actually be less than these frauds. Science has become pathetic in these rushing way. We needcompletely different model or system for doing science. 

Avatar of: Sharon Waldrop

Anonymous

June 22, 2011

I would like to know why this is happening. Has it always been a problem? or are we just now catching the problems? Is it the relationship between the Principal Investigator and their postdoc/graduate student? We need to address why these people are cheating and penalizing those of us who are doing good research.

Avatar of: Basu Biswarup

Anonymous

June 22, 2011

We dont know how many papers are falsified like this one..and people established themselves through them....we do need some open access system for reviewing a paper for a month and that should be available to everyone for reviewing before publication.....not only reviewing through some editors is enough

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

June 22, 2011

It seems as other papers from Bois were "problematic"..:
http://f1000.com/1018377

Avatar of: Joseph McPhee

Anonymous

June 22, 2011

Well, he's got his Ass. Prof. position, so I guess the fudging paid off.  

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

woow

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

My supervisor recently uncovered 55 falsified figures across more than 10 papers by a single author in the cancer field.  Journal editors have been informed and last week the first was retracted.  I guess you'll be reading about it all soon.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

Assistant professor?  This guy should be driving a taxi!!  Science is not a quest to prove your pet theory, it is a search for the TRUTH, even if you do not like what you find.  Disgusting!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

It makes one worry about what is not caught by the scientific community.

I feel for the honest researchers, especially those directly involved who's trust was not rewarded very kindly.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

This is one of many instances I know of in the last 15 years that features a con-man getting a professorship BECAUSE he is a con-man. This is fraud, pure and simple. The University of Florida should file criminal fraud charges against him and sue him for all salary paid to him plus the lab startup costs they staked him. The ranks of the generation of scientists coming of age now are chock full of lying, cheating con-men. And they have got to learn that there is a downside.

There is no real penalty now for being a science con-man. Cut off from NIH for 3 years? What a joke!

But there is a penalty for NOT being a con. If you make up garbage that makes a splash you get hired as a hot-shot professor. If you don't make stuff up you get passed over. Chances are, you won't get caught for a while. This guy was a con-man and stupid. That's why he got caught.

Plus, most of these jackals are sociopaths who just don't care if they are lying. So they present all the social signals to the world that we normally depend on to tell if someone is lying. Like Bernie Madoff, they slink their smarmy their way into our social circles and suck the blood out of us. They are parasitic worms in the body of science.

Come on Florida! Do the right thing! Nail this jackal to the wall and make an example of him. Ruin him and put him in prison where he belongs! Make sure the entire world knows about it! Scare the other smarmy little parasites lurking in labs out of science!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

This is a joke. People are falsifying data and publishing in high impact or low impact journal. My questions are how many of them get caught? Not many, I guess  but they produced an environement where publishing papers have become a joke. It affects those honest post-docs and students who take long-time to confirm and publish their findings. They though do not stand a chance for jobs as their publication profile would actually be less than these frauds. Science has become pathetic in these rushing way. We needcompletely different model or system for doing science. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

I would like to know why this is happening. Has it always been a problem? or are we just now catching the problems? Is it the relationship between the Principal Investigator and their postdoc/graduate student? We need to address why these people are cheating and penalizing those of us who are doing good research.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

We dont know how many papers are falsified like this one..and people established themselves through them....we do need some open access system for reviewing a paper for a month and that should be available to everyone for reviewing before publication.....not only reviewing through some editors is enough

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

It seems as other papers from Bois were "problematic"..:
http://f1000.com/1018377

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

Well, he's got his Ass. Prof. position, so I guess the fudging paid off.  

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

It seems as other papers from Bois were "problematic"..:
http://f1000.com/1018377

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

woow

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

My supervisor recently uncovered 55 falsified figures across more than 10 papers by a single author in the cancer field.  Journal editors have been informed and last week the first was retracted.  I guess you'll be reading about it all soon.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

Assistant professor?  This guy should be driving a taxi!!  Science is not a quest to prove your pet theory, it is a search for the TRUTH, even if you do not like what you find.  Disgusting!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

It makes one worry about what is not caught by the scientific community.

I feel for the honest researchers, especially those directly involved who's trust was not rewarded very kindly.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

This is one of many instances I know of in the last 15 years that features a con-man getting a professorship BECAUSE he is a con-man. This is fraud, pure and simple. The University of Florida should file criminal fraud charges against him and sue him for all salary paid to him plus the lab startup costs they staked him. The ranks of the generation of scientists coming of age now are chock full of lying, cheating con-men. And they have got to learn that there is a downside.

There is no real penalty now for being a science con-man. Cut off from NIH for 3 years? What a joke!

But there is a penalty for NOT being a con. If you make up garbage that makes a splash you get hired as a hot-shot professor. If you don't make stuff up you get passed over. Chances are, you won't get caught for a while. This guy was a con-man and stupid. That's why he got caught.

Plus, most of these jackals are sociopaths who just don't care if they are lying. So they present all the social signals to the world that we normally depend on to tell if someone is lying. Like Bernie Madoff, they slink their smarmy their way into our social circles and suck the blood out of us. They are parasitic worms in the body of science.

Come on Florida! Do the right thing! Nail this jackal to the wall and make an example of him. Ruin him and put him in prison where he belongs! Make sure the entire world knows about it! Scare the other smarmy little parasites lurking in labs out of science!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

This is a joke. People are falsifying data and publishing in high impact or low impact journal. My questions are how many of them get caught? Not many, I guess  but they produced an environement where publishing papers have become a joke. It affects those honest post-docs and students who take long-time to confirm and publish their findings. They though do not stand a chance for jobs as their publication profile would actually be less than these frauds. Science has become pathetic in these rushing way. We needcompletely different model or system for doing science. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

I would like to know why this is happening. Has it always been a problem? or are we just now catching the problems? Is it the relationship between the Principal Investigator and their postdoc/graduate student? We need to address why these people are cheating and penalizing those of us who are doing good research.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

We dont know how many papers are falsified like this one..and people established themselves through them....we do need some open access system for reviewing a paper for a month and that should be available to everyone for reviewing before publication.....not only reviewing through some editors is enough

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 22, 2011

Well, he's got his Ass. Prof. position, so I guess the fudging paid off.  

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Seeing the tease to read the article, I half-expected that the individual behind the data (as a figure) had "enhanced" the image, say, making a band a bit "heavier" in the interest of showing contrast.  I think we are all well aware of how dramatic software like Photoshop can be used to "emphasize a finding."  Technically, it is probably a data falsification, so long as it does not alter the main point of what is happening biologically.

But this has crossed the line of scientific criminality in that this individual has deceived several laboratory groups into altering the focus of their research based upon his fabrications.  A graduate student within the laboratory group has lost valuable time pursuing a path to a dead end.  Research funds---hard to find at any given time and in most every case--have been squandered by those misled by the deception.

I oppose the penalties usually recommended by ORI, which involve a period of ineligibility to be a coordinator or participant in projects funded by certain agencies.  I rather believe that the equivalent of a "scientific death penalty" be imposed on frauds:  there are Ph.D.s walking the streets or in completely different careers because they are deemed unable to compete with a more elite class, so when a member of that "elite class" has been found to be have cheated his/her way into the club, he/she has not only robbed the society who supported that scientist of money and time, but also the career of someone more deserving if only for the reason they don't publish as often out of the need to make sure they have honest, reproducible results.  This creep is worthy of getting the scarlet letter and being burned at the stake:  namely, he has no more business doing experimental science at least on the public's dime, nor should he ever be honored for his accomplishments from his colleagues.  That he holds his post when the weight of the evidence is against him, and that he cannot replicate his own work, should be all that needs to be said.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

It is not the issue of reviewing. It is an issue of PI who did not seriously review manuscripts before submission!!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

This is why? Why is this? This is because of hiden roles in scientific community. How much published Western-blots were polished (fabricated) by photoshop???
Why PI always is right when their students, postdoc committed fraud? How PI as a corresponding author finalzied frauded papers? 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Overall, PI should take responsibility for every published paper, because a PI should have ability to review his students, posdocs' manuscripts, especially examining original data!!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

I uncovered gross scientific fraud & misconduct at a pharma co, reported it internaly and nothing happened. Then reported it to the Feds (now it's mandatory to report any suspected scientific fraud & misconduct) and I have not talked to anyone or heard anything since my initial conversation reporting my findings.
The lab who did the work has been in trouble in the past and is still in operation.
Why make regulations and not enforce them.?
It is sad how many people just look the other way to protect their butts/job. I have ethics and a conscious that wouldn't give in to sit down and shut up because of the fact that clinical trials are human lives and not animals. My life was made hellish and I was eventually terminated for doing my job, well I was unaware of the kiss-ass and leave all ethical values and integrity at the door.
By the way MD's are just as guilty of scientific fraud.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Lying is human nature, whether it is done to deceive intentionally or whether to support one's own point of view, so it will always occur.  In this case there was clear fraud, but in other instances the very act of interpreting data to fit a theory can be naturally skewed with the hope that it conforms to that idea. Objectivity is difficult to find, occasionally even in the lab. This just shows the importance of peer review.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Peer review is as good as the peers.  If the field is small, papers can end up in the hands of 'friends' who will support the original lie.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Agreed. Good point. Doesn't work if you are surrounded by yes men.  The data needs to be scrutinized appropriately & questioned even if you agree with the outcome.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Look at this paper! Anyone can repeat it?
 

Nature. 1998 Nov
26;396(6709):373-6.
Proto-oncogene PML controls genes devoted to MHC class I antigen
presentation.
Zheng P, Guo Y, Niu Q, Levy DE, Dyck JA, Lu S, Sheiman LA, Liu Y.

Source

Department of Pathology and Kaplan Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York
University Medical Center, New York 10016, USA.

Abstract

Fragments of foreign antigens associated with class I molecules of the major
histocompatibility complex (MHC) are presented at the cell surface to elicit an
immune response. This presentation requires the coordinated expression of
several genes contained in the MHC, including those encoding the MHC class I
heavy chain, the proteins LMP-2 and LMP-7, which are involved in the proteasomal
degradation of cytosolic antigens into peptide fragments that are destined for
association with MHC class I molecules, and TAP-1 and TAP-2, which transport
these fragments across the membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum at the start of
their journey to the cell surface. In many virus-transformed cell lines and
spontaneous tumours, these genes are simultaneously repressed. However, the key
factor(s) that are essential for their expression and repression have not been
identified. Here we report that the proto-oncogene product PML induces
expression of LMP-2, LMP-7, TAP-1 and TAP-2 in an MHC-class I-negative,
recurrent tumour, leading to the re-expression of cell-surface MHC in tumours
and to rejection of the tumours. PML also regulates MHC expression in
untransformed fibroblasts. We conclude that malfunction of PML may enable a
tumour to evade the immune defence of its host.

PMID:
9845074
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

But this has crossed the line of scientific criminality in that this individual has deceived several laboratory groups into altering the focus of their research based upon his fabrications. A graduate student within the laboratory group has lost valuable time pursuing a path to a dead end. Research funds---hard to find at any given time and in most every case--have been squandered by those misled by the deception.

While JCB was only out for five months before it was retracted, the falsifications derailed the research of another graduate student in Grosevld’s lab who was following up on Bois’s findings, Grosveld said. “My graduate student spent a whole year frustrated to the bone because he couldn’t replicate any of it.â€쳌

Look at what NIH grant derived from this paper had yielded:

How  many publications are related to the NIH RO1 grants? How many students and postdoctroal researchers wasted their time? The PI knows!!!

Grant Detail The grant detail shows the name of the PI, active dates of the project, the funding institute and the abstract of the grant. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the grant. If any publications referencing this grant are found in the data, they will be listed here as well. PROTO ONCOGENE PML AND TUMOR EVASION OF HOST IMMUNITYPan Zheng 6 August 1999 - 31 May 2004
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE NIH RePORTERAbstractThe peptides presented by the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I antigens are the primary targets on tumor cells for immune recognition by host cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL). A large proportion of tumors derived from MHC class I positive epithelia have total or selective loss of cell surface MHC class I expression. This may allow tumors to evade the immune recognition by avoiding MHC class I antigen presentation. While genetic mechanisms that lead to antigen presentation defects are largely unknown, it is clear that expression of multiple genes involved in antigen presentation such as those encode transporters for peptides across endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane (TAP-1 and TAP-2), proteosome components LMP-2 and LMP-7 are affected. We have recently characterized a recurrent tumor in mouse that had defective expression of TAP1/2 and LMP2/7. Expression cloning revealed that the defect could be complemented by overexpression of proto-oncogene PML-F12. Moreover, we have found that endogenous PML contains a dominant negative mutation. The main goal of the proposed study is to establish whether malfunction of PML is responsible for antigen presentation defects in murine and human tumors. We proposed to investigate the mechanisms by which PML controls multiple genes devoted to MHC class I antigen processing. Our proposed study is fundamental to understand the basic mechanism for tumor evasion of host anti-tumor immunity. Given expression of PML gene in normal tissue, it is likely the mechanism we have identified is involved in antigen presentation in normal tissue. As such, our study may establish PML as a master regulator controlling MHC class I antigen presentation.19 Resulting Publications1.2008
McNally Beth A; Trgovcich Joanne; Maul Gerd G; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA role for cytoplasmic PML in cellular resistance to viral infection.PloS one 2008;3(5):e2277.
2.2006
Wang Yin; Liu Yan; Wu Cindy; Zhang Huiming; Zheng Xincheng; Zheng Zhi; Geiger Terrence L; Nuovo Gerard J; Liu Yang; Zheng PanEpm2a suppresses tumor growth in an immunocompromised host by inhibiting Wnt signaling.Cancer cell 2006;10(3):179-90.
3.2005
Yang Tianyu; Lapinski Philip E; Zhao Haotian; Zhou Qunmin; Zhang Huiming; Raghavan Malini; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA rare transporter associated with antigen processing polymorphism overpresented in HLAlow colon cancer reveals the functional significance of the signature domain in antigen processing.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2005;11(10):3614-23.
4.2004
Zheng Xincheng; Yin Lijie; Liu Yang; Zheng PanExpression of tissue-specific autoantigens in the hematopoietic cells leads to activation-induced cell death of autoreactive T cells in the secondary lymphoid organs.European journal of immunology 2004;34(11):3126-34.
5.2004
Gao Jian-Xin; Chang Xing; Zheng Xincheng; Wen Jing; Yin Lijie; Du Peishuang; Zheng Pan; Liu YangA new role for CD28 in the survival of autoreactive T cells in the periphery after chronic exposure to autoantigen.International immunology 2004;16(10):1403-9.
6.2003
Gao Jian-Xin; Liu Xingluo; Wen Jing; Caligiuri Michael A; Stroynowski Iwona; Zheng Pan; Liu YangTwo-signal requirement for activation and effector function of natural killer cell response to allogeneic tumor cells.Blood 2003;102(13):4456-63.
7.2003
Sarma Supria; Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jin-qing; May Kenneth F; Zheng Pan; Liu YangOn the role of unmutated antigens in tumor rejection in mice with unperturbed T-cell repertoires.Cancer research 2003;63(18):6051-5.
8.2003
Liu Xingluo; Gao Jian Xin; Wen Jing; Yin Lijie; Li Ou; Zuo Tao; Gajewski Thomas F; Fu Yang-Xin; Zheng Pan; Liu YangB7DC/PDL2 promotes tumor immunity by a PD-1-independent mechanism.The Journal of experimental medicine 2003;197(12):1721-30.
9.2003
Gao Jian-Xin; Liu Xingluo; Wen Jing; Zhang Huiming; Durbin Joan; Liu Yang; Zheng PanDifferentiation of monocytic cell clones into CD8 alpha+ dendritic cells (DC) suggests that monocytes can be direct precursors for both CD8 alpha+ and CD8 alpha- DC in the mouse.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2003;170(12):5927-35.
10.2003
Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jinqing; Li Ou; Zheng Pan; Liu YangAntigenic drift as a mechanism for tumor evasion of destruction by cytolytic T lymphocytes.The Journal of clinical investigation 2003;111(10):1487-96.
11.2003
Yang Tianyu; McNally Beth A; Ferrone Soldano; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA single-nucleotide deletion leads to rapid degradation of TAP-1 mRNA in a melanoma cell line.The Journal of biological chemistry 2003;278(17):15291-6.
12.2003
Zhang Huiming; Melamed Jonathan; Wei Ping; Cox Karen; Frankel Wendy; Bahnson Robert R; Robinson Nikki; Pyka Ron; Liu Yang; Zheng PanConcordant down-regulation of proto-oncogene PML and major histocompatibility antigen HLA class I expression in high-grade prostate cancer.Cancer immunity : a journal of the Academy of Cancer Immunology 2003;3():2.
13.2002
Zheng Xincheng; Gao Jian-Xin; Zhang Huiming; Geiger Terrence L; Liu Yang; Zheng PanClonal deletion of simian virus 40 large T antigen-specific T cells in the transgenic adenocarcinoma of mouse prostate mice: an important role for clonal deletion in shaping the repertoire of T cells specific for antigens overexpressed in solid tumors.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2002;169(9):4761-9.
14.2002
May Kenneth F; Chen Lieping; Zheng Pan; Liu YangAnti-4-1BB monoclonal antibody enhances rejection of large tumor burden by promoting survival but not clonal expansion of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells.Cancer research 2002;62(12):3459-65.
15.2002
Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jinqing; May Kenneth F; Guo Yong; Zheng Pan; Liu YangB7-CTLA4 interaction promotes cognate destruction of tumor cells by cytotoxic T lymphocytes in vivo.Blood 2002;99(8):2880-9.
16.2002
Gao Jian-Xin; Zhang Huiming; Bai Xue-Feng; Wen Jing; Zheng Xincheng; Liu Jinqing; Zheng Pan; Liu YangPerinatal blockade of b7-1 and b7-2 inhibits clonal deletion of highly pathogenic autoreactive T cells.The Journal of experimental medicine 2002;195(8):959-71.
17.2001
Liu X; Bai X F; Wen J; Gao J X; Liu J; Lu P; Wang Y; Zheng P; Liu YB7H costimulates clonal expansion of, and cognate destruction of tumor cells by, CD8(+) T lymphocytes in vivo.The Journal of experimental medicine 2001;194(9):1339-48.
18.2001
Bai X F; Bender J; Liu J; Zhang H; Wang Y; Li O; Du P; Zheng P; Liu YLocal costimulation reinvigorates tumor-specific cytolytic T lymphocytes for experimental therapy in mice with large tumor burdens.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2001;167(7):3936-43.
19.
2001Bai X F; Gao J X; Liu J; Wen J; Zheng P; Liu YOn the site and mode of antigen presentation for the initiation of clonal expansion of CD8 T cells specific for a natural tumor antigen.Cancer research 2001;61(18):6860-7.http://www.experts.scival.com/umichig...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

And I am the one that gets rejected from every Ph.D. program to which I applied. So not fair.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

I uncovered gross scientific fraud & misconduct at a pharma co, reported it internaly and nothing happened. Then reported it to the Feds (now it's mandatory to report any suspected scientific fraud & misconduct) and I have not talked to anyone or heard anything since my initial conversation reporting my findings.
The lab who did the work has been in trouble in the past and is still in operation.
Why make regulations and not enforce them.?
It is sad how many people just look the other way to protect their butts/job. I have ethics and a conscious that wouldn't give in to sit down and shut up because of the fact that clinical trials are human lives and not animals. My life was made hellish and I was eventually terminated for doing my job, well I was unaware of the kiss-ass and leave all ethical values and integrity at the door.
By the way MD's are just as guilty of scientific fraud.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Lying is human nature, whether it is done to deceive intentionally or whether to support one's own point of view, so it will always occur.  In this case there was clear fraud, but in other instances the very act of interpreting data to fit a theory can be naturally skewed with the hope that it conforms to that idea. Objectivity is difficult to find, occasionally even in the lab. This just shows the importance of peer review.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Peer review is as good as the peers.  If the field is small, papers can end up in the hands of 'friends' who will support the original lie.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Agreed. Good point. Doesn't work if you are surrounded by yes men.  The data needs to be scrutinized appropriately & questioned even if you agree with the outcome.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Look at this paper! Anyone can repeat it?
 

Nature. 1998 Nov
26;396(6709):373-6.
Proto-oncogene PML controls genes devoted to MHC class I antigen
presentation.
Zheng P, Guo Y, Niu Q, Levy DE, Dyck JA, Lu S, Sheiman LA, Liu Y.

Source

Department of Pathology and Kaplan Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York
University Medical Center, New York 10016, USA.

Abstract

Fragments of foreign antigens associated with class I molecules of the major
histocompatibility complex (MHC) are presented at the cell surface to elicit an
immune response. This presentation requires the coordinated expression of
several genes contained in the MHC, including those encoding the MHC class I
heavy chain, the proteins LMP-2 and LMP-7, which are involved in the proteasomal
degradation of cytosolic antigens into peptide fragments that are destined for
association with MHC class I molecules, and TAP-1 and TAP-2, which transport
these fragments across the membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum at the start of
their journey to the cell surface. In many virus-transformed cell lines and
spontaneous tumours, these genes are simultaneously repressed. However, the key
factor(s) that are essential for their expression and repression have not been
identified. Here we report that the proto-oncogene product PML induces
expression of LMP-2, LMP-7, TAP-1 and TAP-2 in an MHC-class I-negative,
recurrent tumour, leading to the re-expression of cell-surface MHC in tumours
and to rejection of the tumours. PML also regulates MHC expression in
untransformed fibroblasts. We conclude that malfunction of PML may enable a
tumour to evade the immune defence of its host.

PMID:
9845074
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

But this has crossed the line of scientific criminality in that this individual has deceived several laboratory groups into altering the focus of their research based upon his fabrications. A graduate student within the laboratory group has lost valuable time pursuing a path to a dead end. Research funds---hard to find at any given time and in most every case--have been squandered by those misled by the deception.

While JCB was only out for five months before it was retracted, the falsifications derailed the research of another graduate student in Grosevld’s lab who was following up on Bois’s findings, Grosveld said. “My graduate student spent a whole year frustrated to the bone because he couldn’t replicate any of it.â€쳌

Look at what NIH grant derived from this paper had yielded:

How  many publications are related to the NIH RO1 grants? How many students and postdoctroal researchers wasted their time? The PI knows!!!

Grant Detail The grant detail shows the name of the PI, active dates of the project, the funding institute and the abstract of the grant. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the grant. If any publications referencing this grant are found in the data, they will be listed here as well. PROTO ONCOGENE PML AND TUMOR EVASION OF HOST IMMUNITYPan Zheng 6 August 1999 - 31 May 2004
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE NIH RePORTERAbstractThe peptides presented by the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I antigens are the primary targets on tumor cells for immune recognition by host cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL). A large proportion of tumors derived from MHC class I positive epithelia have total or selective loss of cell surface MHC class I expression. This may allow tumors to evade the immune recognition by avoiding MHC class I antigen presentation. While genetic mechanisms that lead to antigen presentation defects are largely unknown, it is clear that expression of multiple genes involved in antigen presentation such as those encode transporters for peptides across endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane (TAP-1 and TAP-2), proteosome components LMP-2 and LMP-7 are affected. We have recently characterized a recurrent tumor in mouse that had defective expression of TAP1/2 and LMP2/7. Expression cloning revealed that the defect could be complemented by overexpression of proto-oncogene PML-F12. Moreover, we have found that endogenous PML contains a dominant negative mutation. The main goal of the proposed study is to establish whether malfunction of PML is responsible for antigen presentation defects in murine and human tumors. We proposed to investigate the mechanisms by which PML controls multiple genes devoted to MHC class I antigen processing. Our proposed study is fundamental to understand the basic mechanism for tumor evasion of host anti-tumor immunity. Given expression of PML gene in normal tissue, it is likely the mechanism we have identified is involved in antigen presentation in normal tissue. As such, our study may establish PML as a master regulator controlling MHC class I antigen presentation.19 Resulting Publications1.2008
McNally Beth A; Trgovcich Joanne; Maul Gerd G; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA role for cytoplasmic PML in cellular resistance to viral infection.PloS one 2008;3(5):e2277.
2.2006
Wang Yin; Liu Yan; Wu Cindy; Zhang Huiming; Zheng Xincheng; Zheng Zhi; Geiger Terrence L; Nuovo Gerard J; Liu Yang; Zheng PanEpm2a suppresses tumor growth in an immunocompromised host by inhibiting Wnt signaling.Cancer cell 2006;10(3):179-90.
3.2005
Yang Tianyu; Lapinski Philip E; Zhao Haotian; Zhou Qunmin; Zhang Huiming; Raghavan Malini; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA rare transporter associated with antigen processing polymorphism overpresented in HLAlow colon cancer reveals the functional significance of the signature domain in antigen processing.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2005;11(10):3614-23.
4.2004
Zheng Xincheng; Yin Lijie; Liu Yang; Zheng PanExpression of tissue-specific autoantigens in the hematopoietic cells leads to activation-induced cell death of autoreactive T cells in the secondary lymphoid organs.European journal of immunology 2004;34(11):3126-34.
5.2004
Gao Jian-Xin; Chang Xing; Zheng Xincheng; Wen Jing; Yin Lijie; Du Peishuang; Zheng Pan; Liu YangA new role for CD28 in the survival of autoreactive T cells in the periphery after chronic exposure to autoantigen.International immunology 2004;16(10):1403-9.
6.2003
Gao Jian-Xin; Liu Xingluo; Wen Jing; Caligiuri Michael A; Stroynowski Iwona; Zheng Pan; Liu YangTwo-signal requirement for activation and effector function of natural killer cell response to allogeneic tumor cells.Blood 2003;102(13):4456-63.
7.2003
Sarma Supria; Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jin-qing; May Kenneth F; Zheng Pan; Liu YangOn the role of unmutated antigens in tumor rejection in mice with unperturbed T-cell repertoires.Cancer research 2003;63(18):6051-5.
8.2003
Liu Xingluo; Gao Jian Xin; Wen Jing; Yin Lijie; Li Ou; Zuo Tao; Gajewski Thomas F; Fu Yang-Xin; Zheng Pan; Liu YangB7DC/PDL2 promotes tumor immunity by a PD-1-independent mechanism.The Journal of experimental medicine 2003;197(12):1721-30.
9.2003
Gao Jian-Xin; Liu Xingluo; Wen Jing; Zhang Huiming; Durbin Joan; Liu Yang; Zheng PanDifferentiation of monocytic cell clones into CD8 alpha+ dendritic cells (DC) suggests that monocytes can be direct precursors for both CD8 alpha+ and CD8 alpha- DC in the mouse.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2003;170(12):5927-35.
10.2003
Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jinqing; Li Ou; Zheng Pan; Liu YangAntigenic drift as a mechanism for tumor evasion of destruction by cytolytic T lymphocytes.The Journal of clinical investigation 2003;111(10):1487-96.
11.2003
Yang Tianyu; McNally Beth A; Ferrone Soldano; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA single-nucleotide deletion leads to rapid degradation of TAP-1 mRNA in a melanoma cell line.The Journal of biological chemistry 2003;278(17):15291-6.
12.2003
Zhang Huiming; Melamed Jonathan; Wei Ping; Cox Karen; Frankel Wendy; Bahnson Robert R; Robinson Nikki; Pyka Ron; Liu Yang; Zheng PanConcordant down-regulation of proto-oncogene PML and major histocompatibility antigen HLA class I expression in high-grade prostate cancer.Cancer immunity : a journal of the Academy of Cancer Immunology 2003;3():2.
13.2002
Zheng Xincheng; Gao Jian-Xin; Zhang Huiming; Geiger Terrence L; Liu Yang; Zheng PanClonal deletion of simian virus 40 large T antigen-specific T cells in the transgenic adenocarcinoma of mouse prostate mice: an important role for clonal deletion in shaping the repertoire of T cells specific for antigens overexpressed in solid tumors.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2002;169(9):4761-9.
14.2002
May Kenneth F; Chen Lieping; Zheng Pan; Liu YangAnti-4-1BB monoclonal antibody enhances rejection of large tumor burden by promoting survival but not clonal expansion of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells.Cancer research 2002;62(12):3459-65.
15.2002
Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jinqing; May Kenneth F; Guo Yong; Zheng Pan; Liu YangB7-CTLA4 interaction promotes cognate destruction of tumor cells by cytotoxic T lymphocytes in vivo.Blood 2002;99(8):2880-9.
16.2002
Gao Jian-Xin; Zhang Huiming; Bai Xue-Feng; Wen Jing; Zheng Xincheng; Liu Jinqing; Zheng Pan; Liu YangPerinatal blockade of b7-1 and b7-2 inhibits clonal deletion of highly pathogenic autoreactive T cells.The Journal of experimental medicine 2002;195(8):959-71.
17.2001
Liu X; Bai X F; Wen J; Gao J X; Liu J; Lu P; Wang Y; Zheng P; Liu YB7H costimulates clonal expansion of, and cognate destruction of tumor cells by, CD8(+) T lymphocytes in vivo.The Journal of experimental medicine 2001;194(9):1339-48.
18.2001
Bai X F; Bender J; Liu J; Zhang H; Wang Y; Li O; Du P; Zheng P; Liu YLocal costimulation reinvigorates tumor-specific cytolytic T lymphocytes for experimental therapy in mice with large tumor burdens.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2001;167(7):3936-43.
19.
2001Bai X F; Gao J X; Liu J; Wen J; Zheng P; Liu YOn the site and mode of antigen presentation for the initiation of clonal expansion of CD8 T cells specific for a natural tumor antigen.Cancer research 2001;61(18):6860-7.http://www.experts.scival.com/umichig...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

And I am the one that gets rejected from every Ph.D. program to which I applied. So not fair.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Seeing the tease to read the article, I half-expected that the individual behind the data (as a figure) had "enhanced" the image, say, making a band a bit "heavier" in the interest of showing contrast.  I think we are all well aware of how dramatic software like Photoshop can be used to "emphasize a finding."  Technically, it is probably a data falsification, so long as it does not alter the main point of what is happening biologically.

But this has crossed the line of scientific criminality in that this individual has deceived several laboratory groups into altering the focus of their research based upon his fabrications.  A graduate student within the laboratory group has lost valuable time pursuing a path to a dead end.  Research funds---hard to find at any given time and in most every case--have been squandered by those misled by the deception.

I oppose the penalties usually recommended by ORI, which involve a period of ineligibility to be a coordinator or participant in projects funded by certain agencies.  I rather believe that the equivalent of a "scientific death penalty" be imposed on frauds:  there are Ph.D.s walking the streets or in completely different careers because they are deemed unable to compete with a more elite class, so when a member of that "elite class" has been found to be have cheated his/her way into the club, he/she has not only robbed the society who supported that scientist of money and time, but also the career of someone more deserving if only for the reason they don't publish as often out of the need to make sure they have honest, reproducible results.  This creep is worthy of getting the scarlet letter and being burned at the stake:  namely, he has no more business doing experimental science at least on the public's dime, nor should he ever be honored for his accomplishments from his colleagues.  That he holds his post when the weight of the evidence is against him, and that he cannot replicate his own work, should be all that needs to be said.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

It is not the issue of reviewing. It is an issue of PI who did not seriously review manuscripts before submission!!!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

This is why? Why is this? This is because of hiden roles in scientific community. How much published Western-blots were polished (fabricated) by photoshop???
Why PI always is right when their students, postdoc committed fraud? How PI as a corresponding author finalzied frauded papers? 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 23, 2011

Overall, PI should take responsibility for every published paper, because a PI should have ability to review his students, posdocs' manuscripts, especially examining original data!!!

June 23, 2011

Seeing the tease to read the article, I half-expected that the individual behind the data (as a figure) had "enhanced" the image, say, making a band a bit "heavier" in the interest of showing contrast.  I think we are all well aware of how dramatic software like Photoshop can be used to "emphasize a finding."  Technically, it is probably a data falsification, so long as it does not alter the main point of what is happening biologically.

But this has crossed the line of scientific criminality in that this individual has deceived several laboratory groups into altering the focus of their research based upon his fabrications.  A graduate student within the laboratory group has lost valuable time pursuing a path to a dead end.  Research funds---hard to find at any given time and in most every case--have been squandered by those misled by the deception.

I oppose the penalties usually recommended by ORI, which involve a period of ineligibility to be a coordinator or participant in projects funded by certain agencies.  I rather believe that the equivalent of a "scientific death penalty" be imposed on frauds:  there are Ph.D.s walking the streets or in completely different careers because they are deemed unable to compete with a more elite class, so when a member of that "elite class" has been found to be have cheated his/her way into the club, he/she has not only robbed the society who supported that scientist of money and time, but also the career of someone more deserving if only for the reason they don't publish as often out of the need to make sure they have honest, reproducible results.  This creep is worthy of getting the scarlet letter and being burned at the stake:  namely, he has no more business doing experimental science at least on the public's dime, nor should he ever be honored for his accomplishments from his colleagues.  That he holds his post when the weight of the evidence is against him, and that he cannot replicate his own work, should be all that needs to be said.

Avatar of: guest

Anonymous

June 23, 2011

It is not the issue of reviewing. It is an issue of PI who did not seriously review manuscripts before submission!!!

Avatar of: goingwiththeflow

Anonymous

June 23, 2011

I uncovered gross scientific fraud & misconduct at a pharma co, reported it internaly and nothing happened. Then reported it to the Feds (now it's mandatory to report any suspected scientific fraud & misconduct) and I have not talked to anyone or heard anything since my initial conversation reporting my findings.
The lab who did the work has been in trouble in the past and is still in operation.
Why make regulations and not enforce them.?
It is sad how many people just look the other way to protect their butts/job. I have ethics and a conscious that wouldn't give in to sit down and shut up because of the fact that clinical trials are human lives and not animals. My life was made hellish and I was eventually terminated for doing my job, well I was unaware of the kiss-ass and leave all ethical values and integrity at the door.
By the way MD's are just as guilty of scientific fraud.

June 23, 2011

Lying is human nature, whether it is done to deceive intentionally or whether to support one's own point of view, so it will always occur.  In this case there was clear fraud, but in other instances the very act of interpreting data to fit a theory can be naturally skewed with the hope that it conforms to that idea. Objectivity is difficult to find, occasionally even in the lab. This just shows the importance of peer review.

Avatar of: andymarcos635

andymarcos635

Posts: 1

June 23, 2011

Peer review is as good as the peers.  If the field is small, papers can end up in the hands of 'friends' who will support the original lie.

June 23, 2011

Agreed. Good point. Doesn't work if you are surrounded by yes men.  The data needs to be scrutinized appropriately & questioned even if you agree with the outcome.

Avatar of: labmember

Anonymous

June 23, 2011

Look at this paper! Anyone can repeat it?
 

Nature. 1998 Nov
26;396(6709):373-6.
Proto-oncogene PML controls genes devoted to MHC class I antigen
presentation.
Zheng P, Guo Y, Niu Q, Levy DE, Dyck JA, Lu S, Sheiman LA, Liu Y.

Source

Department of Pathology and Kaplan Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York
University Medical Center, New York 10016, USA.

Abstract

Fragments of foreign antigens associated with class I molecules of the major
histocompatibility complex (MHC) are presented at the cell surface to elicit an
immune response. This presentation requires the coordinated expression of
several genes contained in the MHC, including those encoding the MHC class I
heavy chain, the proteins LMP-2 and LMP-7, which are involved in the proteasomal
degradation of cytosolic antigens into peptide fragments that are destined for
association with MHC class I molecules, and TAP-1 and TAP-2, which transport
these fragments across the membrane of the endoplasmic reticulum at the start of
their journey to the cell surface. In many virus-transformed cell lines and
spontaneous tumours, these genes are simultaneously repressed. However, the key
factor(s) that are essential for their expression and repression have not been
identified. Here we report that the proto-oncogene product PML induces
expression of LMP-2, LMP-7, TAP-1 and TAP-2 in an MHC-class I-negative,
recurrent tumour, leading to the re-expression of cell-surface MHC in tumours
and to rejection of the tumours. PML also regulates MHC expression in
untransformed fibroblasts. We conclude that malfunction of PML may enable a
tumour to evade the immune defence of its host.

PMID:
9845074
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

But this has crossed the line of scientific criminality in that this individual has deceived several laboratory groups into altering the focus of their research based upon his fabrications. A graduate student within the laboratory group has lost valuable time pursuing a path to a dead end. Research funds---hard to find at any given time and in most every case--have been squandered by those misled by the deception.

While JCB was only out for five months before it was retracted, the falsifications derailed the research of another graduate student in Grosevld’s lab who was following up on Bois’s findings, Grosveld said. “My graduate student spent a whole year frustrated to the bone because he couldn’t replicate any of it.â€쳌

Look at what NIH grant derived from this paper had yielded:

How  many publications are related to the NIH RO1 grants? How many students and postdoctroal researchers wasted their time? The PI knows!!!

Grant Detail The grant detail shows the name of the PI, active dates of the project, the funding institute and the abstract of the grant. This abstract is what is used to create the fingerprint of the grant. If any publications referencing this grant are found in the data, they will be listed here as well. PROTO ONCOGENE PML AND TUMOR EVASION OF HOST IMMUNITYPan Zheng 6 August 1999 - 31 May 2004
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE NIH RePORTERAbstractThe peptides presented by the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I antigens are the primary targets on tumor cells for immune recognition by host cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL). A large proportion of tumors derived from MHC class I positive epithelia have total or selective loss of cell surface MHC class I expression. This may allow tumors to evade the immune recognition by avoiding MHC class I antigen presentation. While genetic mechanisms that lead to antigen presentation defects are largely unknown, it is clear that expression of multiple genes involved in antigen presentation such as those encode transporters for peptides across endoplasmic reticulum (ER) membrane (TAP-1 and TAP-2), proteosome components LMP-2 and LMP-7 are affected. We have recently characterized a recurrent tumor in mouse that had defective expression of TAP1/2 and LMP2/7. Expression cloning revealed that the defect could be complemented by overexpression of proto-oncogene PML-F12. Moreover, we have found that endogenous PML contains a dominant negative mutation. The main goal of the proposed study is to establish whether malfunction of PML is responsible for antigen presentation defects in murine and human tumors. We proposed to investigate the mechanisms by which PML controls multiple genes devoted to MHC class I antigen processing. Our proposed study is fundamental to understand the basic mechanism for tumor evasion of host anti-tumor immunity. Given expression of PML gene in normal tissue, it is likely the mechanism we have identified is involved in antigen presentation in normal tissue. As such, our study may establish PML as a master regulator controlling MHC class I antigen presentation.19 Resulting Publications1.2008
McNally Beth A; Trgovcich Joanne; Maul Gerd G; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA role for cytoplasmic PML in cellular resistance to viral infection.PloS one 2008;3(5):e2277.
2.2006
Wang Yin; Liu Yan; Wu Cindy; Zhang Huiming; Zheng Xincheng; Zheng Zhi; Geiger Terrence L; Nuovo Gerard J; Liu Yang; Zheng PanEpm2a suppresses tumor growth in an immunocompromised host by inhibiting Wnt signaling.Cancer cell 2006;10(3):179-90.
3.2005
Yang Tianyu; Lapinski Philip E; Zhao Haotian; Zhou Qunmin; Zhang Huiming; Raghavan Malini; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA rare transporter associated with antigen processing polymorphism overpresented in HLAlow colon cancer reveals the functional significance of the signature domain in antigen processing.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research 2005;11(10):3614-23.
4.2004
Zheng Xincheng; Yin Lijie; Liu Yang; Zheng PanExpression of tissue-specific autoantigens in the hematopoietic cells leads to activation-induced cell death of autoreactive T cells in the secondary lymphoid organs.European journal of immunology 2004;34(11):3126-34.
5.2004
Gao Jian-Xin; Chang Xing; Zheng Xincheng; Wen Jing; Yin Lijie; Du Peishuang; Zheng Pan; Liu YangA new role for CD28 in the survival of autoreactive T cells in the periphery after chronic exposure to autoantigen.International immunology 2004;16(10):1403-9.
6.2003
Gao Jian-Xin; Liu Xingluo; Wen Jing; Caligiuri Michael A; Stroynowski Iwona; Zheng Pan; Liu YangTwo-signal requirement for activation and effector function of natural killer cell response to allogeneic tumor cells.Blood 2003;102(13):4456-63.
7.2003
Sarma Supria; Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jin-qing; May Kenneth F; Zheng Pan; Liu YangOn the role of unmutated antigens in tumor rejection in mice with unperturbed T-cell repertoires.Cancer research 2003;63(18):6051-5.
8.2003
Liu Xingluo; Gao Jian Xin; Wen Jing; Yin Lijie; Li Ou; Zuo Tao; Gajewski Thomas F; Fu Yang-Xin; Zheng Pan; Liu YangB7DC/PDL2 promotes tumor immunity by a PD-1-independent mechanism.The Journal of experimental medicine 2003;197(12):1721-30.
9.2003
Gao Jian-Xin; Liu Xingluo; Wen Jing; Zhang Huiming; Durbin Joan; Liu Yang; Zheng PanDifferentiation of monocytic cell clones into CD8 alpha+ dendritic cells (DC) suggests that monocytes can be direct precursors for both CD8 alpha+ and CD8 alpha- DC in the mouse.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2003;170(12):5927-35.
10.2003
Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jinqing; Li Ou; Zheng Pan; Liu YangAntigenic drift as a mechanism for tumor evasion of destruction by cytolytic T lymphocytes.The Journal of clinical investigation 2003;111(10):1487-96.
11.2003
Yang Tianyu; McNally Beth A; Ferrone Soldano; Liu Yang; Zheng PanA single-nucleotide deletion leads to rapid degradation of TAP-1 mRNA in a melanoma cell line.The Journal of biological chemistry 2003;278(17):15291-6.
12.2003
Zhang Huiming; Melamed Jonathan; Wei Ping; Cox Karen; Frankel Wendy; Bahnson Robert R; Robinson Nikki; Pyka Ron; Liu Yang; Zheng PanConcordant down-regulation of proto-oncogene PML and major histocompatibility antigen HLA class I expression in high-grade prostate cancer.Cancer immunity : a journal of the Academy of Cancer Immunology 2003;3():2.
13.2002
Zheng Xincheng; Gao Jian-Xin; Zhang Huiming; Geiger Terrence L; Liu Yang; Zheng PanClonal deletion of simian virus 40 large T antigen-specific T cells in the transgenic adenocarcinoma of mouse prostate mice: an important role for clonal deletion in shaping the repertoire of T cells specific for antigens overexpressed in solid tumors.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2002;169(9):4761-9.
14.2002
May Kenneth F; Chen Lieping; Zheng Pan; Liu YangAnti-4-1BB monoclonal antibody enhances rejection of large tumor burden by promoting survival but not clonal expansion of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells.Cancer research 2002;62(12):3459-65.
15.2002
Bai Xue-Feng; Liu Jinqing; May Kenneth F; Guo Yong; Zheng Pan; Liu YangB7-CTLA4 interaction promotes cognate destruction of tumor cells by cytotoxic T lymphocytes in vivo.Blood 2002;99(8):2880-9.
16.2002
Gao Jian-Xin; Zhang Huiming; Bai Xue-Feng; Wen Jing; Zheng Xincheng; Liu Jinqing; Zheng Pan; Liu YangPerinatal blockade of b7-1 and b7-2 inhibits clonal deletion of highly pathogenic autoreactive T cells.The Journal of experimental medicine 2002;195(8):959-71.
17.2001
Liu X; Bai X F; Wen J; Gao J X; Liu J; Lu P; Wang Y; Zheng P; Liu YB7H costimulates clonal expansion of, and cognate destruction of tumor cells by, CD8(+) T lymphocytes in vivo.The Journal of experimental medicine 2001;194(9):1339-48.
18.2001
Bai X F; Bender J; Liu J; Zhang H; Wang Y; Li O; Du P; Zheng P; Liu YLocal costimulation reinvigorates tumor-specific cytolytic T lymphocytes for experimental therapy in mice with large tumor burdens.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2001;167(7):3936-43.
19.
2001Bai X F; Gao J X; Liu J; Wen J; Zheng P; Liu YOn the site and mode of antigen presentation for the initiation of clonal expansion of CD8 T cells specific for a natural tumor antigen.Cancer research 2001;61(18):6860-7.http://www.experts.scival.com/umichig...

Avatar of: Adam Perrotta

Anonymous

June 23, 2011

And I am the one that gets rejected from every Ph.D. program to which I applied. So not fair.

Avatar of: Gest

Anonymous

June 23, 2011

This is why? Why is this? This is because of hiden roles in scientific community. How much published Western-blots were polished (fabricated) by photoshop???
Why PI always is right when their students, postdoc committed fraud? How PI as a corresponding author finalzied frauded papers? 

Avatar of: gest

Anonymous

June 23, 2011

Overall, PI should take responsibility for every published paper, because a PI should have ability to review his students, posdocs' manuscripts, especially examining original data!!!

Avatar of: edrybicki

edrybicki

Posts: 1457

June 24, 2011

"Has it always been a problem?" - Yes.  And people were exposed, dealt with, and science moved on.  Except that now we have a lot more people in the system, referees are harder pressed to review things - and it is a WHOLE lot easier to fake images than it ever was.  I showed a Dept seminar how to do this in the early 90s with DNA bands in an agarose gel with primitive software (and what to look for too see if it had been done): these days I am sure the average reviewer is so far behind the curve on technology that they wouldn't spot faked pictures.

So it will just get worse - unless and until journals and even granting bodies start to insist on seeing unretouched photos - or like we do, GLP-quality images stored in a format that can't be faked.  Unless one simply does some artful electrophoresis with samples added at different times....  So it goes.  There will always be sociopaths or tortured and driven students who feel the need to fake that which they cannot show.  That's the world we live in!

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

June 24, 2011

On the contrary, what if the PI himself/herself insists on doing it ?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 24, 2011

"Has it always been a problem?" - Yes.  And people were exposed, dealt with, and science moved on.  Except that now we have a lot more people in the system, referees are harder pressed to review things - and it is a WHOLE lot easier to fake images than it ever was.  I showed a Dept seminar how to do this in the early 90s with DNA bands in an agarose gel with primitive software (and what to look for too see if it had been done): these days I am sure the average reviewer is so far behind the curve on technology that they wouldn't spot faked pictures.

So it will just get worse - unless and until journals and even granting bodies start to insist on seeing unretouched photos - or like we do, GLP-quality images stored in a format that can't be faked.  Unless one simply does some artful electrophoresis with samples added at different times....  So it goes.  There will always be sociopaths or tortured and driven students who feel the need to fake that which they cannot show.  That's the world we live in!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 24, 2011

On the contrary, what if the PI himself/herself insists on doing it ?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 24, 2011

"Has it always been a problem?" - Yes.  And people were exposed, dealt with, and science moved on.  Except that now we have a lot more people in the system, referees are harder pressed to review things - and it is a WHOLE lot easier to fake images than it ever was.  I showed a Dept seminar how to do this in the early 90s with DNA bands in an agarose gel with primitive software (and what to look for too see if it had been done): these days I am sure the average reviewer is so far behind the curve on technology that they wouldn't spot faked pictures.

So it will just get worse - unless and until journals and even granting bodies start to insist on seeing unretouched photos - or like we do, GLP-quality images stored in a format that can't be faked.  Unless one simply does some artful electrophoresis with samples added at different times....  So it goes.  There will always be sociopaths or tortured and driven students who feel the need to fake that which they cannot show.  That's the world we live in!

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 24, 2011

On the contrary, what if the PI himself/herself insists on doing it ?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 26, 2011

Ellen, the case does NOT seem to involve faculty at the University of Florida -- rather Dr. Bois and his wife Dr. Izard-Bois are at the Scripps Research Institute
of Florida in the department of Dr. Cleveland (all of whom had left St.J.H.)

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 26, 2011

Ellen, the current institution is NOT the University of Florida, but rather Scripps Research Institute of Florida, where the respondent moved with his former mentor who is now Chairman of the Department of Cancer Biology
http://www.scripps.edu/florida...

I also noticed a Palm Spring Post press article, paralleling your concerns:http://www.palmbeachpost.com/m..."Bois disputes the finding and intends to appeal, The Scripps Research Institute said in a prepared statement. Bois declined to comment. . . .A National Institutes of Health spokeswoman said it's unclear how last week's finding will affect federal funding for two projects Bois is working on at Scripps Florida. Bois is the principal investigator on two projects funded by NIH - one a $291,750 grant that ends in August, the other a $320,760 grant for work through 2015. . . .A finding of research misconduct can lead to disciplinary action by a scientist's employer and suspension of federal grants, NIH said. Scripps wouldn't say whether any action has been taken against Bois."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 26, 2011

Ellen, the case does NOT seem to involve faculty at the University of Florida -- rather Dr. Bois and his wife Dr. Izard-Bois are at the Scripps Research Institute
of Florida in the department of Dr. Cleveland (all of whom had left St.J.H.)

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 26, 2011

Ellen, the current institution is NOT the University of Florida, but rather Scripps Research Institute of Florida, where the respondent moved with his former mentor who is now Chairman of the Department of Cancer Biology
http://www.scripps.edu/florida...

I also noticed a Palm Spring Post press article, paralleling your concerns:http://www.palmbeachpost.com/m..."Bois disputes the finding and intends to appeal, The Scripps Research Institute said in a prepared statement. Bois declined to comment. . . .A National Institutes of Health spokeswoman said it's unclear how last week's finding will affect federal funding for two projects Bois is working on at Scripps Florida. Bois is the principal investigator on two projects funded by NIH - one a $291,750 grant that ends in August, the other a $320,760 grant for work through 2015. . . .A finding of research misconduct can lead to disciplinary action by a scientist's employer and suspension of federal grants, NIH said. Scripps wouldn't say whether any action has been taken against Bois."

Avatar of: Alan Price, P.R.I.C.E.

Anonymous

June 26, 2011

Ellen, the case does NOT seem to involve faculty at the University of Florida -- rather Dr. Bois and his wife Dr. Izard-Bois are at the Scripps Research Institute
of Florida in the department of Dr. Cleveland (all of whom had left St.J.H.)

Avatar of: Alan Price, P.R.I.C.E.

Anonymous

June 26, 2011

Ellen, the current institution is NOT the University of Florida, but rather Scripps Research Institute of Florida, where the respondent moved with his former mentor who is now Chairman of the Department of Cancer Biology
http://www.scripps.edu/florida...

I also noticed a Palm Spring Post press article, paralleling your concerns:http://www.palmbeachpost.com/m..."Bois disputes the finding and intends to appeal, The Scripps Research Institute said in a prepared statement. Bois declined to comment. . . .A National Institutes of Health spokeswoman said it's unclear how last week's finding will affect federal funding for two projects Bois is working on at Scripps Florida. Bois is the principal investigator on two projects funded by NIH - one a $291,750 grant that ends in August, the other a $320,760 grant for work through 2015. . . .A finding of research misconduct can lead to disciplinary action by a scientist's employer and suspension of federal grants, NIH said. Scripps wouldn't say whether any action has been taken against Bois."

Avatar of: Tallsound

Anonymous

June 27, 2011

All scientists should be abolished.  Stop doing science . It is not necessary.  All human's lie.  Thus all scientists find the evidence tat fits their bais.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 27, 2011

All scientists should be abolished.  Stop doing science . It is not necessary.  All human's lie.  Thus all scientists find the evidence tat fits their bais.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

June 27, 2011

All scientists should be abolished.  Stop doing science . It is not necessary.  All human's lie.  Thus all scientists find the evidence tat fits their bais.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

It's extremely frustrating having to work for a PI who constantly insists that the data CAN be embellished, photoshopped, etc. Two post-docs I currently work with and I are disgruntled and disheartened about our career prospects. So much so that all three of us are going to pursue other careers, including secondary school teaching, law, and business. This is NOT the way to encourage the next generation of much needed scientists/engineers and there needs to be a way for people like us to blow the whistle without being further destroyed.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

Wow, such vitriol! Wouldn't the same ethics that apply to academic honesty also require you to examine the facts in their entirety before  blindly crucifying people in a fit of primal rage? This is the kind of stuff the Catholic church did to Galileo. Lighten up, lady...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

No kidding!  It's far more convenient to discredit people as liars than to be a true peer and objectively review someone's work. Peer review has devolved into "slam everyone you're competing for grant money with."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

absolutely true and i recently experienced a *bad* paper be accepted because the editorial board was stacked in favor of the head PI. that's not science, that's greed.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

NASA does an unbelievable amount of photographic manipulation.  Images are a form of communication, and should not necessarily be considered photographic evidence. I'm just amazed at how ruthlessly you throw your colleagues under a bus. As if all the work he did for years was nothing but lies. With all the backstabbing in the scientific community, it's no wonder progress has been stalled for decades. Why don't you stop trying to make each other look bad and produce something that benefits humanity?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

There's a huge difference between moderately adjusting brightness/contrast/hue/intensity/etc and deliberately adding or deleting information. My naivety made me think this was a rare occurrence, until I took a post-doc where it's practically mandatory to avoid retaliation and keep your job. NIH, NSF, and NPA need to do a better job of helping conscientious post-docs get out of these no-win situations. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

What if the con-man is your advisor? e.g. they change your images/figures before publication and you are surprised when it is in print...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

No kidding!  It's far more convenient to discredit people as liars than to be a true peer and objectively review someone's work. Peer review has devolved into "slam everyone you're competing for grant money with."

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

absolutely true and i recently experienced a *bad* paper be accepted because the editorial board was stacked in favor of the head PI. that's not science, that's greed.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

These journals all reside behind paywalls and are only accessible by the elite few in the ivory tower. If you're going to be academic elitists and shut the world out to all but your own, expect intellectual inbreeding.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

NASA does an unbelievable amount of photographic manipulation.  Images are a form of communication, and should not necessarily be considered photographic evidence. I'm just amazed at how ruthlessly you throw your colleagues under a bus. As if all the work he did for years was nothing but lies. With all the backstabbing in the scientific community, it's no wonder progress has been stalled for decades. Why don't you stop trying to make each other look bad and produce something that benefits humanity?

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

There's a huge difference between moderately adjusting brightness/contrast/hue/intensity/etc and deliberately adding or deleting information. My naivety made me think this was a rare occurrence, until I took a post-doc where it's practically mandatory to avoid retaliation and keep your job. NIH, NSF, and NPA need to do a better job of helping conscientious post-docs get out of these no-win situations. 

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

What if the con-man is your advisor? e.g. they change your images/figures before publication and you are surprised when it is in print...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

These journals all reside behind paywalls and are only accessible by the elite few in the ivory tower. If you're going to be academic elitists and shut the world out to all but your own, expect intellectual inbreeding.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

It's extremely frustrating having to work for a PI who constantly insists that the data CAN be embellished, photoshopped, etc. Two post-docs I currently work with and I are disgruntled and disheartened about our career prospects. So much so that all three of us are going to pursue other careers, including secondary school teaching, law, and business. This is NOT the way to encourage the next generation of much needed scientists/engineers and there needs to be a way for people like us to blow the whistle without being further destroyed.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

July 1, 2011

Wow, such vitriol! Wouldn't the same ethics that apply to academic honesty also require you to examine the facts in their entirety before  blindly crucifying people in a fit of primal rage? This is the kind of stuff the Catholic church did to Galileo. Lighten up, lady...

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

July 1, 2011

NASA does an unbelievable amount of photographic manipulation.  Images are a form of communication, and should not necessarily be considered photographic evidence. I'm just amazed at how ruthlessly you throw your colleagues under a bus. As if all the work he did for years was nothing but lies. With all the backstabbing in the scientific community, it's no wonder progress has been stalled for decades. Why don't you stop trying to make each other look bad and produce something that benefits humanity?

Avatar of: MangoTree1800St

Anonymous

July 1, 2011

There's a huge difference between moderately adjusting brightness/contrast/hue/intensity/etc and deliberately adding or deleting information. My naivety made me think this was a rare occurrence, until I took a post-doc where it's practically mandatory to avoid retaliation and keep your job. NIH, NSF, and NPA need to do a better job of helping conscientious post-docs get out of these no-win situations. 

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

July 1, 2011

What if the con-man is your advisor? e.g. they change your images/figures before publication and you are surprised when it is in print...

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

July 1, 2011

These journals all reside behind paywalls and are only accessible by the elite few in the ivory tower. If you're going to be academic elitists and shut the world out to all but your own, expect intellectual inbreeding.

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

July 1, 2011

No kidding!  It's far more convenient to discredit people as liars than to be a true peer and objectively review someone's work. Peer review has devolved into "slam everyone you're competing for grant money with."

Avatar of: Poozangway

Anonymous

July 1, 2011

absolutely true and i recently experienced a *bad* paper be accepted because the editorial board was stacked in favor of the head PI. that's not science, that's greed.

Avatar of: Harkened

Anonymous

July 1, 2011

It's extremely frustrating having to work for a PI who constantly insists that the data CAN be embellished, photoshopped, etc. Two post-docs I currently work with and I are disgruntled and disheartened about our career prospects. So much so that all three of us are going to pursue other careers, including secondary school teaching, law, and business. This is NOT the way to encourage the next generation of much needed scientists/engineers and there needs to be a way for people like us to blow the whistle without being further destroyed.

Avatar of: Guest

Anonymous

July 1, 2011

Wow, such vitriol! Wouldn't the same ethics that apply to academic honesty also require you to examine the facts in their entirety before  blindly crucifying people in a fit of primal rage? This is the kind of stuff the Catholic church did to Galileo. Lighten up, lady...

Avatar of: Alan Price, P.R.I.C.E.

Anonymous

July 4, 2011

Ellen, he is not at the University of Florida, but at Scripps Institution of Florida

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
Hamamatsu
Hamamatsu
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews