The Scientist : NewsBlog Print: Student fudged immunology data
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Student fudged immunology data
Posted by Jef Akst
[Entry posted at 21st August 2009 09:13 PM GMT]

A former graduate student studying the link between immune function and symptoms of high cholesterol at the Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport fudged data in three published papers and one manuscript under review, according to a report by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).

Image: Wikimedia commons
Ryan Wolfort admitted to "fabricating tabulations and the associated statistical analyses" in four reports stemming from his dissertation research on the role of the immune system in endothelial dysfunction associated with diet-induced high cholesterol, the ORI statement said. Specifically, Wolfort falsified measurements of endothelial function in all four reports, results of a cytokine measurement assay in one of the published papers, and levels of superoxide production in the other two.

As a result of the ORI's finding, all three published papers -- two in the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology and one in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology -- have been retracted or are in the process of being retracted. Two of the papers had not been cited, according to ISI, and the other was not found in the database. In addition, Wolfort has been suspended from eligibility for federal grants and is barred from serving on any US Public Health Service (PHS) advisory committee for two years.

Although Wolfort claimed that some of these falsifications were unintentional, he admitted to deliberately erasing the files and discarding the notebooks containing the raw data for these measures -- an offense which the ORI also considers an act of research misconduct. This action "did play into ORI's findings," John Dahlberg, the director of ORI's Division of Investigative Oversight, told The Scientist in an email, adding that Wolfort received such a severe sentence because of "the overall scope of the admitted misconduct."

The university refused to comment on how the fraud would affect the status of Wolfort's PhD earned in 2008, but he will retain his MD degree, earned from the LSU Health Science Center School of Medicine in 2003, Dahlberg said.

Due to ongoing "legal issues" related to the case, university employees -- including Wolfort's PhD advisor D. Neil Granger, who was a coauthor on all three of the published papers in question -- were unable to comment. The university also refused to comment on Wolfort's current whereabouts.

"The faculty and administration of LSU Health Sciences Center at Shreveport subscribe to the highest standards of research integrity and procedures are in place designed to assure that integrity," the university said in a statement. "The report in the Federal Register is evidence that these procedures are effective."


Related stories:
  • Misconduct from NIH postdoc
    [17th February 2009]
  • Duke investigating misconduct?
    [25th July 2008]
  • Lies, Damn Lies? and Scientific Misconduct
    [February 2006]

    •  

    Rate this article

    Rating: 4.76/5 (17 votes )


    Comment on this blog


    Return to Top
    comment:
    Editors
    by Rafaela Canete-Soler

    [Comment posted 2009-08-28 10:29:34]


    Hello Allison,

    Thanks for directing me to the reference in The Scientist by R. Gallagher. I am glad that R. Gallagher ends the article wishing the Editors of Journals took the point. It does not seem to be the case. Again, here the blame could be placed on the rigorousness of reviewers. But like in the cases of postdocs vs PIs when there are appearances of scientific misconduct, one is also left here with no option but question Editors?s performance and standards.

    Thanks again


    Return to Top
    comment:
    Citations
    by Press Pass

    [Comment posted 2009-08-28 07:34:10]
    Hi-

    We've run several articles, in the last year especially, about the practice of "citation violation," or omitting key citations from references. Here is one article for example: LINK

    Thanks,
    Alison McCook
    Deputy Editor


    Return to Top
    comment:
    The supervisor is more at fault!
    by DR.BADRI NARAYAN PATNAIK

    [Comment posted 2009-08-28 05:29:27]
    I think the supervisor is also to share a major chunk of this malafied publication/presentation.Like somebody else has mentioned the supervisor takes a lot of credit and kudos when research yiels encouraging results but puts it on the head of the student when things go.........wrong??make supervisor lagely accountable!


    Return to Top
    comment:
    Omissions of citations in scientific papers, can it be considered fudging data ?
    by Rafaela Canete-Soler

    [Comment posted 2009-08-28 04:57:54]


    As a consequence of another report in this issue of The Scientist, I am asking myself this question. I don?t have a complete answer. I looked for the meaning of fudging at Thesaurus:

    Fudge

    - present or deal with (something) in a vague, noncommittal, or inadequate way, esp. so as to conceal the truth or mislead.
    - adjust or manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture.

    Since The Scientist seems to be a widely read journal by graduate students, investigators and citizens interested in science, it would not be a bad idea to present a report on #Citation in scientific reports, what, why and how and the impact and consequences for science #. It would contribute to the training of young scientists, educate the public and refresh memories for all of us.

    If this has been done by any other journal or author, I would appreciate to be directed to the reference. I also apologize for my lack of information.

    Thank you



    Return to Top
    comment:
    To my anonymous colleague.
    by Adam Smith

    [Comment posted 2009-08-27 09:01:46]
    Sadly, I believe that the attitude you so hauntingly display is indeed part of the problem. As a member of the scientific community (which, perhaps mistakenly, I include you in), I believe that you have a certain responsibility that goes beyond truthfully reporting results and includes an ethics of behaviour in general.

    You make an extremely serious claim of a ?cover up?. This is certainly not a minor accusation to be tossed around. As a member of this community, we must take it upon ourselves to back up our views with evidence and reason. This is not to say that speculation plays no role in our lives, far from it, however one must ensure that this speculation has some basis and one must explicitly detail their reasons for such conjecture.

    Now you may say that a comment on a website, carefully shielded behind a cloak of anonymity, is hardly in the same league as the crimes of which we speak. I would counter that a loose tongue here is evidence of loose thinking in general and I would press upon the entire community to remain vigilant in upholding the ethics of the ?Giants? who we so admire. We must harshly sanction those who break the faith, as Mr. Wolfort has done, but we cannot allow ourselves to sink to his level while doing so.


    Return to Top
    comment:
    Omnipresent Gods
    by Rafaela Canete-Soler

    [Comment posted 2009-08-26 04:33:52]


    Dear anonymous,

    I share your same concern that ?It may well be that ALL the information isn't available yet, but from what is stated, they seem to be more focused on PR than getting it right.?.

    I many times have wondered how is it possible to train real scientists when a PI has multiple Program Projects, couple of RO1s, grants from disease foundations?. My only explanation is that they are Omnipresent Gods with magic powers. The only problem is that science is not happy about these Omnipresent Gods and ?delegating? has true and real limits.


    Return to Top
    comment:
    Response to Adam Smith
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-08-26 03:01:07]
    Deliberately provocative? Hardly. If it went over your head, I'll explain but, judging from the other comments, I don't think that the others failed to grasp the degree and significance of transgression here.

    The point of "MD?, PhD.?" was that this was no fledgling recent undergrad who was gambling their all on a career in science while trying desperately to get a foothold in a high-productivity lab and might be excused for the bad judgment of inexperienced youth. This was a fully credentialed MD who 1) should have already had a thoroughgoing exposure to ethics - if he hadn't received same in his lower education - and 2) the possession of that credential should have eliminated any desperation springing from the prospects of an unsuccessful experiment and consequences thereof. Need I point to blatant ambition in total disregard of the basic foundation of science? He should lose his prospects of a Ph.D. and, as he did this deed WHILE BEING A CREDENTIALED MD, the institution which granted that credential has every right to reconsider his right to display it based on his grossly unprofessional behavior.

    I would expect a laissez faire attitude from someone with Adam Smith for a user-id, but science isn't business or economics and standards, if they are to be maintained, require regulation and the fortitude to apply them rigorously. It may well be that ALL the information isn't available yet, but from what is stated, they seem to be more focused on PR than getting it right.


    Return to Top
    comment:
    What the Supervisor was doing?
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-08-25 22:04:00]
    D. Neil Granger, in this case should be made equally responsible or even more. As the supervisor he was suppose to make sure of the results and the integrity of his student, as is generally done. he cannot wash his hands telling that "He did that" .
    Some -if not all- supervisors are happy that the student or postdoc gives the favourable "results" but when it is caught the blame is to the junior... very unfair.


    ORI please note this.



    Return to Top
    comment:
    There's a lot missing here!
    by CHARLES J MALEMUD

    [Comment posted 2009-08-25 13:39:37]
    I am a research scientist and a faculty member who teaches in an ethics course designed for MSTP and PhD students entitled, "Becoming a Professional Scientist." Because it appears that the PI and LSU-Shreveport cannot comment on the details of this misconduct, there is a lot of information missing here. For example, how did the papers in question come to be retracted? One scenario that often plays out in PhD dissertation work is that another PhD student or postdoc tries to repeat the work with no success. Another is that a lab 'whistleblower' turns the offender into a University offical. Did either of these events occur? Also, what did the offender mean when stating that the "fabrication was unintentional." Was he coerced into this deception by another? Was there any oversight during the actual collection of the data? Who was minding the store? Did ORI investigate why this person cut corners in the research lab? Was he pressured by someone else to produce a 'blockbuster' study result? Maybe what's truly missing here is that PIs should force PhD candidates to constantly self-reflect on their deficiencies in the research lab. Isn't this worthy of a study in and of itself?


    Return to Top
    comment:
    Yes. A clever deceiver will always?..but unfortunately PIs are too often real outsiders
    by Rafaela Canete-Soler

    [Comment posted 2009-08-25 10:49:53]



    I agree that a clever deceiver will always deceive. But it is also true that PIs are too often outside of the lab, too busy in ?scientific affairs?.

    The frequency of undesirable events that affect under, graduate students, young and established investigators strongly suggests that the ?% effort? needs to be seriously reassessed. Unfortunately, the % effort has become a purely bureaucratic concept without meaning and yet with too often negative consequences for the development of scientists and science itself.

    The PI is the alma mater of the lab; seeing him/her around talking science, sitting on the bench doing experiments, at least from time to time, taking interests in every single person in the lab, as well as in promoting bonding among members of the group have become something of a past era. We often talk about personalized medicine as the medicine of the future. Personalized science has been the motor of science all the way through the history of science. Perhaps, we need to go back to the sources and reinvent it for today?s times.

    NIH and academic/research institutions need to take this into very serious consideration. Perhaps they need to come together and find ways to make sure that, at a minimum, the % effort is a live concept. Because there is the potential danger of a hidden fraudulent use of public funds.


    Return to Top
    comment:
    A clever deceiver will deceive
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-08-24 21:46:39]
    This has nothing to do with supervision and mentorship. A clever person bent on deception, will deceive. There is little that can be done. The real message and warning here is that any honest scientist and advisor no matter how diligent can be victimized by such dishonest people. All the checking in the world cannot prevent it. The very fabric of science is trust. Without it, we cannot function.


    Return to Top
    comment:
    Inadequate Advisor Oversight
    by PAUL STEIN

    [Comment posted 2009-08-24 13:54:56]
    With this high level of inappropriate research conduct, one cannot help but to point to a poor level of advisor training and mentorship. Sometimes, as senior scientists reach certain levels of their careers, student oversight ends up as a low priority, leading to incidents such as this. Recall the infamous Darsee Affair.

    Training competent ethical scientists is vitally important for the future of the field. If senior scientists view scientist training as unimportant, perhaps they should stop taking students on and focus on other matters.


    Return to Top
    comment:
    Would you trust him as a physician?
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-08-24 13:16:37]
    It's unfortunate that the pressures of the system have produced such a desperate person. As he will likely retain his M.D., not only should his potential employers be wary of him, but his PATIENTS.


    Return to Top
    comment:
    A cover up?
    by Adam Smith

    [Comment posted 2009-08-24 11:14:53]
    What a bizarre thing to say after just reading about it. What do you think is being covered up? Or is this just your way of being intentionally provocative. If so, it is very tiresome.

    This is an extremely serious case and it would behove us all to take it seriously. I can see no way that his PhD will stand. Unless this action directly related to the MD, then there is no way it can be stripped from him. However, his current employer, whomever it may be, should be notified of these findings as soon as possible.


    Return to Top
    comment:
    MD? Ph.D.? Papers withdrawn and only 2 yr suspension?
    by anonymous poster

    [Comment posted 2009-08-23 16:38:55]
    Bespeaks abysmally low standards of the "regulators" as well. It cheapens all M.D. and Ph.D. degrees. It almost smacks of cover-up.


    Comment on this blog