US postdoc fabricates DNA data

A former postdoc at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) falsified and fabricated DNA sequences and methylation status in unpublished data about a tumor suppressor gene, a UNMC investigation, in conjunction with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), has found. From 2002-2005, Lois Bartsch worked in James Shull's laboratory at UNMC, researching the tumor suppressor gene, p16Cdkn2a, in rats. The investigation concluded that Bartsch altered the nucleotide sequence of the p16Cdkn2a pr

Written byElie Dolgin
| 2 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share
A former postdoc at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) falsified and fabricated DNA sequences and methylation status in unpublished data about a tumor suppressor gene, a UNMC investigation, in conjunction with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), has found. From 2002-2005, Lois Bartsch worked in James Shull's laboratory at UNMC, researching the tumor suppressor gene, p16Cdkn2a, in rats. The investigation concluded that Bartsch altered the nucleotide sequence of the p16Cdkn2a promoter region in GenBank, in a National Cancer Institute grant application, and a poster presentation. The investigation also found that Bartsch's grant application contained falsified data on the methylation status of rat p16Cdkn2a, and a fabricated claim of a polymorphism in the human homologue. No data was ever published in any peer-reviewed journal. A two-year inquiry was initiated after Shull asked the university to investigate around 2005, David Crouse, UNMC's associate vice-chancellor for academic affairs, told The Scientist. Shull declined to comment in any detail, but said that his suspicions of fraud led him to ask a second person in his lab to repeat some of Bartsch's experiments, and her data could not be replicated. "These were pretty distinct findings that couldn't be rebutted," Crouse said. "The data simply had been altered." According to the ORI's report, Bartsch entered into a "Voluntary Exclusion Agreement" in which she neither admits nor denies the misconduct findings. Bartsch, now an assistant professor at Graceland University in Lamoni, Iowa, where she teaches but does not maintain an active laboratory, did not respond to requests for comment. Linda Buckles, a former PhD student with Shull who switched supervisors and continues to work as a postdoc in another UNMC lab, sequenced the p16Cdkn2a coding region in Shull's lab before Bartsch starting working on the promoter. "My data conflicted with her data," she said. Disagreements between Buckles, Shull, and Bartsch eventually forced Buckles to leave the lab non-voluntarily in February 2004, she said. "Dr. Shull and I will never be on speaking terms or have a good relationship," Buckles said. Karen Deffenbacher, a former postdoc who joined Shull's group in 2004 and now works in a different UNMC lab, said that problems in Shull's lab went beyond Bartsch's data. "There was a general problem of integrity of the work coming out of that lab," she said. "[Shull] didn't really audit any of the data. He just wanted answers that matched his hypothesis." In 2006, Deffenbacher said Shull asked her to be the principal investigator on a Department of Defense grant originally held by Bartsch. This funded her research for a year, after which she wrote a final summary report. This was no easy task, she said. "It was a mess," because a number of different people had all worked on the project. "It wasn't clear where all the data was." Both Buckles and Deffenbacher told The Scientist that they have draft manuscripts that Shull refuses to publish. Shull, however, said that both former lab members had their papers rejected from peer-reviewed journals, and that he is currently incorporating their results into other manuscripts, or re-analyzing portions of the data. Deffenbacher said that only one of her two manuscripts had been rejected though, and that Shull was sitting on both of them without her consultation. Other than Bartsch's misconduct, Crouse said he didn't know about any other problems in Shull's lab.
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Meet the Author

Share
Image of a woman with her hands across her stomach. She has a look of discomfort on her face. There is a blown up image of her stomach next to her and it has colorful butterflies and gut bacteria all swarming within the gut.
November 2025, Issue 1

Why Do We Feel Butterflies in the Stomach?

These fluttering sensations are the brain’s reaction to certain emotions, which can be amplified or soothed by the gut’s own “bugs".

View this Issue
Olga Anczukow and Ryan Englander discuss how transcriptome splicing affects immune system function in lung cancer.

Long-Read RNA Sequencing Reveals a Regulatory Role for Splicing in Immunotherapy Responses

Pacific Biosciences logo
Research Roundtable: The Evolving World of Spatial Biology

Research Roundtable: The Evolving World of Spatial Biology

Conceptual cartoon image of gene editing technology

Exploring the State of the Art in Gene Editing Techniques

Bio-Rad
Conceptual image of a doctor holding a brain puzzle, representing Alzheimer's disease diagnosis.

Simplifying Early Alzheimer’s Disease Diagnosis with Blood Testing

fujirebio logo

Products

Eppendorf Logo

Research on rewiring neural circuit in fruit flies wins 2025 Eppendorf & Science Prize

Evident Logo

EVIDENT's New FLUOVIEW FV5000 Redefines the Boundaries of Confocal and Multiphoton Imaging

Evident Logo

EVIDENT Launches Sixth Annual Image of the Year Contest

10x Genomics Logo

10x Genomics Launches the Next Generation of Chromium Flex to Empower Scientists to Massively Scale Single Cell Research