Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Cell Scientists to Watch
    • First Person
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JCS
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Fast-track manuscripts
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • JCS Prize
    • Manuscript transfer network
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JCS
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Institutional usage stats (logged-in users only)
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Cell Science
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Journal of Cell Science

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS   Twitter  Facebook   YouTube  

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Cell Scientists to Watch
    • First Person
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About JCS
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Fast-track manuscripts
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • JCS Prize
    • Manuscript transfer network
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contact JCS
    • Subscriptions
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Institutional usage stats (logged-in users only)
Sticky Wicket
Fake! Part I
Mole
Journal of Cell Science 2006 119: 4791-4792; doi: 10.1242/jcs.03244
Mole
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading


Embedded Image

It is an odd mixture of disdain, revulsion, anger and fear that I have been imbibing with my morning coffee, and, to tell you the truth, it's already ruining my day. Not that it's been a very nice day, anyway - old Mole entertained a visiting scientist last night and might have overdone it a bit. But this news today has put me off my toast.

It seems that a well known researcher in my field has been exposed as a fake. An outright fraud, trickster, hustler, charlatan, scallywag, gutless cheat. Some might say “rat”, but I know many honorable rats, and it isn't fair to bring them into this. He didn't simply fudge his data; he made it up. Not just once, but many times. In papers I not only read and believed, but trusted (and cited). I feel sick. And very ticked off.

Of course, fakery in science is not new. Perhaps the most famous case in history is that of the fossil human skull `discovered' in 1912 by Charles Dawson and presented as the “Piltdown Man”, a supposed missing link between apes and early man. In 1917 he presented “Piltdown II” and converted many skeptics to the authenticity of these fossils. Over the ensuing years, as more human fossils were found, Piltdown Man ceased to fit into the emerging data, and in 1953 new techniques revealed it to be a fraud, most likely perpetuated by Dawson, who has a variety of other shady transactions to his name as well. (Not everyone agrees on whodunit. One line of speculation suggests that the culprit was Arthur Conan Doyle.) A reexamination of the `fossil' revealed it to be a 600-year-old human skull and a crudely filed orangutan jaw bone.

A more recent (but still ancient, pre-PubMed) case involved William Summerlin, who in 1974 presented mice that he had rendered immunologically tolerant to foreign skin grafts, which turned out to be nothing more than black paint on the white mice. Another involved a case in which a cancer-causing gene was shown to be a kinase; the tubes with the radioactive label that proved this contained label but no protein. Other cases abound, leading up to the recent Huang stem-cell fiasco (it makes me weep). In each case scientists uncovered the fakery, but how many were missed? Each time, measures were instituted to ensure that this would not happen again, and again it happened.

In the case that has ruined my day today, an editor from one of the weeklies (those journals with the nice soft pages) called to ask me why the community hadn't caught this scoundrel sooner. Why, for example, hadn't we attempted to reproduce the results? In fact, we had, and while we observed trends in his direction, we never obtained his striking effects; but then we hadn't done the same experiment he had. Why not? Well (I harrumphed), it would have taken a couple of years, and a lot of hard work, and, whichever way it turned out, would the weekly have published it? Probably not, she agreed, and we both got more depressed.

What to do? In these days of heightened security, color alerts and strip searches at airports, the answer tends to be one of reaction: we simply need more security. (Just yesterday I had a small packet of mustard confiscated as I went to board a plane, accompanied by a scowling official who reprimanded me for my carelessness - needless to say, we all felt much safer knowing that nobody could harm us at 50,000 feet with condiments.) But is this right? Shouldn't we simply implement more security in our assessment of research manuscripts before they make their way into print?

Once upon a time, when I was a mere mole-let in my first faculty job, my university proposed just such a protocol. The administration suggested forming a committee empowered with the task of investigating all raw data going into any publication that we planned to submit. Yes, I thought, a good plan, since those of us with nothing to hide would be happy to show fellow scientists how we drew our conclusions. To my surprise, my good friend, Professor Badger, who was venerated by the institution, announced that he would promptly quit if this were implemented, and the senior faculty, as one, joined him in revolt (these were more demonstrative times).

Professor Badger pointed out that such a process would necessarily take considerable time and create an adversarial process that would hamstring volumes of good science, ultimately becoming a self-fulfilling system that would justify itself by finding trivial errors and ratcheting them up to spectacular (and damaging) levels. Those who would seek administrative power within such a process would be those with a career interest in the activity. Science, suggested dear Professor Badger, cannot flourish in an environment of implied distrust. We should be critical, yes, but not to the point of assuming that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

As it happened, he was right. The best documented example of investigations into scientific misconduct going wildly wrong is a widely publicized case of “fraud” perpetrated by David Baltimore and his colleague Thereza Imanishi-Kari in a paper they published in 1986. During the process, which involved Congressional hearings, secret service investigations, and leaks to the scientific press, Baltimore resigned his position as Director of Rockefeller University, and Imanishi-Kari was banned from doing research for ten years. Subsequently it surfaced that the government investigators themselves had committed a far more egregious (and unpunished) series of outrageous misrepresentations of their own data - suppressing evidence of the scientists' innocence and selecting results to build the case against them. In 1996, on appeal, both Baltimore and Imanishi-Kari were fully exonerated. Nobody, it seems, was watching the watchdogs, and science (and scientists) needlessly suffered.

I suspect that tightening security will only result in more such miscarriages of scientific justice. Only a few years ago, I served as an expert witness on a university investigation of alleged fraud that similarly involved leaks to the press and widespread speculation on the scientist's guilt. The investigation had dragged on for three years before I was asked to participate, and in the end the only hard evidence of guilt was an improperly run control in one experiment, which the scientist in question had chosen to interpret according to several similar control experiments conducted during the same time period (leading to a statement in a published paper that their system produced values in the same range reported extensively by others). I suggested that this was a case of a scientific decision, not fraud, and ultimately (finally) the scientist was cleared - and left to struggle for years to catch up with his research program (not to mention gigantic legal bills). This is not an answer to our problem.

So what do we do? Tighten security? Or live with fraud? Or something else? Of course, we have to do something else. Hey, this is the Mole here, I've got some ideas. But first I need to have some toast.

  • © The Company of Biologists Limited 2006
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Cell Science.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Fake! Part I
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Cell Science
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Cell Science web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Sticky Wicket
Fake! Part I
Mole
Journal of Cell Science 2006 119: 4791-4792; doi: 10.1242/jcs.03244
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Sticky Wicket
Fake! Part I
Mole
Journal of Cell Science 2006 119: 4791-4792; doi: 10.1242/jcs.03244

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • Corona XXX – speechless
  • Corona XXIX – four minutes
  • Corona XXVIII – the Rashomon gate
Show more STICKY WICKET

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Development

Journal of Experimental Biology

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Introducing FocalPlane’s new Community Manager, Esperanza Agullo-Pascual

We are pleased to welcome Esperanza to the Journal of Cell Science team. The new Community Manager for FocalPlane, Esperanza is joining us from the Microscopy Core at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Find out more about Esperanza in her introductory post over on FocalPlane.


New funding scheme supports sustainable events

As part of our Sustainable Conferencing Initiative, we are pleased to announce funding for organisers that seek to reduce the environmental footprint of their event. The next deadline to apply for a Scientific Meeting grant is 26 March 2021.


Read & Publish participation continues to grow

"Alongside pre-printing for early documentation of work, such mechanisms are particularly helpful for early-career researchers like me.”

Dr Chris MacDonald (University of York) shares his experience of publishing Open Access as part of our growing Read & Publish initiative. We now have over 150 institutions in 15 countries and four library consortia taking part – find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.


Cell scientist to watch: Romain Levayer

In an interview, Romain Levayer talks about starting his own lab, his love for preprints and his experience of balancing parenting with his research goals.


Live lactating mammary tissue

In a stunning video, Stewart et al. demonstrate warping of the alveolar unit due to basal cell-generated force as part of their recent work investigating roles for mechanically activated ion channels in lactation and involution.

Visit our YouTube channel to watch more videos from JCS, our sister journals and the Company.


JCS and COVID-19

For more information on measures Journal of Cell Science is taking to support the community during the COVID-19 pandemic, please see here.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hestiate to contact the Editorial Office.

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Interviews
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About Journal of Cell Science
  • Editors and Board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists

For Authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Fast-track manuscripts
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • JCS Prize
  • Manuscript transfer network
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal Info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contacts

  • Contact JCS
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992