Great scientists never have any conflicts of interests, and in the case of the investigation of the research misconduct by the plant scientist Olivier Voinnet, led by his Swiss employer ETH Zürich, this was also apparently the case. Voinnet was found guilty of misconduct and admitted image manipulations in many papers. Yet his science remained largely unquestioned, and even original data behind the most outrageously manipulated figures was said to have been available in many cases. The ETH investigation recommended 6 retractions, one of which was even avoided thanks to the concerns the journal Science had towards that paper’s junior authors (Voinnet’s current retraction count stands at 8 papers and almost 20 corrections, where manipulated data was simply exchanged with new one). Professor emeritus Witold Filipowicz, of the Friedrich-Mieschner-Institute in Basel, is like Voinnet a specialist in the field of regulatory small RNAs, and he was therefore one of two external Voinnet investigators whom ETH invited in early 2015. It did not matter to ETH that it was actually Filipowicz who nominated Voinnet for the EMBO Gold Medal, which the disgraced plant scientist then lost after EMBO’s own investigation into his many years of data manipulation. Continue reading “The Voinnet investigator and the tricky issue of conflict of interests”
The Portuguese cancer researcher Sonia Melo has now achieved the status of a zombie scientist. After an internal investigation which records are kept secret, she was cleared of all suspicions of scientific misconduct and re-installed as group leader at the Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde (I3S) in Porto (see my report here). This despite an impressive PubPeer record of data integrity concerns, and despite the fact that the European research society EMBO revoked Melo’s Installation Grant funding after having determined problems with her publications. EMBO nevertheless stick to their decision, but Melo’s Portuguese funders like Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) apparently see absolutely no need to reconsider their support, certainly not after the I3S whitewashing. Melo previously had to retract a paper (Melo et al, Nature Genetics, 2009) for data manipulations, her other works were however found not problematic by the I3S commission. In two papers in Cancer Cell (Melo et al 2010 and Melo et al 2014), the alleged duplications were apparently proven not to be duplications. As I learned, this was probably because while the top part of the gel images indeed did look suspiciously similar, the lower parts were clearly different. A possibility of digital image splicing was not considered, as it seems. In any case, even if the top bands are indeed the same, it doesn’t really matter. Cell editorial offices made on several occasions perfectly clear that data integrity is not one of their top concerns.
The European Union (EU) is firmly determined to see dozens of patients transplanted with “regenerated” tracheas made by the method of Paolo Macchiarini. Just as soon as one €5.5 Million-funded trial, Biotrachea, was terminated (because the replacement plastic material Macchiarini intended to use was not novel enough), EU gave fresh €7 Million to his former partner and now competitor, the UK throat surgeon Martin Birchall (see my report here). Birchall’s TETRA will be using decellurised cadaveric tracheas, “regenerated” with bone marrow and epithelial cells after the method he developed together with his thorax surgery colleague, Macchiarini. It is a phase II clinical trial, which is rapidly progressing while the Birchall’s corresponding phase I trial, INSPIRE (funded by the public funder Innovate UK), isn’t moving anywhere. In fact, it is about to receive a re-evaluation of its ethics approval on December 2nd 2016, possibly together with Birchall’s other regenerative trial, RegenVox. There, patients are being recruited to have their voice-box replaced with a lab-made one (using same methodology as with trachea); there is also some evidence that the UCL professor already transplanted 3 patients with plastic and cadaveric larynxes even before he applied to the British MRC for the funding of RegenVox in 2012.
I submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) inquiry to the EU, asking for the original research proposal of TETRA. My rationale was to compare its science and methodology to that of INSPIRE, which was decried as unscientific and dangerous by the throat surgery specialists I spoke with. The Director-General of the European Commission, Robert-Jan Smits denied my request on the grounds that it lacks an “overriding public interest”, despite the well-known fact that numerous patients have suffered tremendous damage to their health and even died previously when the very same technology was applied by Birchall and Macchiarini. Instead, the EU Commission declared that financial and business interests of the TETRA consortium participants trump all safety concerns about their human research subjects (the full letter can be read here). This is double as scary, also because I am well aware that among my readers are actual prospective patients of Birchall’s. At the same time, the patient information sheet Birchall is using to recruit patients to INSPIRE is highly misinformative (see my report here). Previously, EU ethics commission even approved a much more outrageous patient consent form for Macchiarini’s trachea transplant trial Biotrachea (see my report here). Bottom line: the patients are being duped by the trials’ own consent forms, while the EU has now officially denied these patients and their kin any right to learn from an independent source like my site about what their doctors intend to do to them. Continue reading “Business interests trump patient safety, says EU about trachea transplant trial”
The trachea transplant experiments by Paolo Macchiarini left many of his trusting patients dead or mutilated. His €5.5 Million EU-funded research project Biotrachea started in April 2012 and was specifically designed to treat even more human beings with lethal plastic tracheas (and with the slightly less lethal cadaveric ones). The consortium was terminated in 2014 (see some background here), but not because the Biotrachea scientists or EU officials suddenly had second thoughts when the Macchiarini scandal unraveled and when his misconduct, ethics breaches as well as painful deaths and suffering of his plastic trachea recipients became known. Unlike an EU spokesperson previously insisted, there were no ethics concerns at all regarding Biotrachea. In fact, all ethics approvals were in place, human Guinea pigs were supposed to be lured en masse using a highly inappropriate patient consent form towards their likely deaths for the sake of EU-funded mega-science.
In truth, Biotrachea collapsed only because of Macchiarini’s greed for money. His financial conflict about patent revenues with the British university UCL drove the star surgeon to seek another plastic transplant manufacturer and then to destroy the entire multinational research consortium which he was presiding over, after the EU rejected his new plastic provider. Not because that one was also deemed unsafe, but as the EU negotiators mentioned, it was because that new type of plastic trachea lacked novelty. All this only became known after the original Biotrachea documents, which the EU and all consortium participants refused to grant me any insight into, were fully legally obtained by Jonas Malmstedt under Swedish transparency from Macchiarini’s ex-employer, the Karolinska Institutet (KI). Thanks to this brave and decent surgeon, I make all that secret documentation available below.
The young star of microbiology Robert Ryan, rose to great heights only to be publicly shot down, without much of an explanation. Instead, newspapers were tipped-off underhand and internal emails discretely forwarded; the only half-way solid information we have is the evidence of image duplications in his papers as posted on PubPeer. Ryan now left the University of Dundee in Scotland; his institutional profile has been deleted. EMBO recently announced in a footnote that Ryan’s Young investigator Programme (YIP) funding was withdrawn.
Unlike the official news suggest though, Ryan did not resign. He was sacked, apparently after a half-a-year long external investigation organized by the University of Dundee and after appeals which involved lawyers on both sides. Unlike I previously assumed, there was no misconduct investigation by his main funder EMBO, the YIP funding was terminated upon unpublished notification forwarded to Ryan’s funders by the University of Dundee. The University College Cork (UCC) in Ireland claims to have initiated their own (also not officially announced) investigation which seems to involve Ryan’s former mentor and co-author on every single manipulations-tainted paper, Maxwell Dow. At least this is what I was told by direct sources, but again, there were no real official announcements whatsoever.
The scandal-shaken Swedish Karolinska Institutet (KI) invited nine of their research group leaders and professors to explain themselves about data integrity concerns raised in regard to their publications. They have time until November 24th 2016 to address of the suspicions of image duplications which were posted on PubPeer by anonymous watchdogs and subsequently reported to Karolinska by a whistleblower. This was the email the 9 scientists received on November 10th from Lisen Samuelsson of KI’s legal department:
“Karolinska Institutet (KI) has been notified about inaccuracies in one or more scientific articles according to comments on the website PubPeer. You are named as the main author of the article (s) in question.
KI therefore requests that you provide a statement regarding whether the alleged inaccuracies are correct or not. If there are inaccuracies in the article (s), KI requests that you specify whether they have been corrected, or if they will be corrected, and if so, how. Please submit your statement to KI at email@example.com regarding this matter by November 24, 2016”.
The email was complemented by a list of these scientists’ respective PubPeer-flagged publications. Most of these 9 addressees are very senior KI researchers, like Ulla Stenius and Boris Zhivotovsky. Here is the list, with some background information:
If these days you should bump into the miracle surgeon Paolo Macchiarini, do not just greet him with some offhand “Ciao Paolo”. But also “Hello, Doctor Macchiarini” would not be respectful enough. As a saying goes among German clinicians: you must take your time, namely by addressing the great man in full as “Professor Doctor Macchiarini”. As we know, after investigations into the deaths and mutilation of a large number of his patients, the former star of regenerative medicine was sacked from his professorship at the Swedish Karolinska Institutet (KI), so that title is now definitely gone. Macchiarini’s other professorships which he used to convincingly carry in his CV, namely those from the University of Paris in France and University of Florence in Italy, proved to be fictional (see also KI report here). However, his adjunct professorship from the Medical University of Hannover (Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, MHH) in Germany is very much real. Here for a change it is not Macchiarini who is cheating, but the German university which allows him to carry that academic title against the state’s law on adjunct professorship, which binds it to ongoing teaching duties. Fortunately, the federal state of Lower Saxony (which owns this Hannover university) doesn’t seem to mind either. In fact, their officer for data protection told me it was none of my business asking whether Professor Macchiarini had been giving any lectures at MHH in the last years. Continue reading “Professor Macchiarini, because Medical University of Hannover wants it so”