Misconduct findings fell KI Vice-President Dahlman-Wright

We are witnessing the conclusion of the case of Karin Dahlman-Wright, cancer researcher and former Rector of the Karolinska Institutet (KI) in Stockholm, Sweden. To give you a three-word summary: Dahlman-Wright was saved, almost. She still had to resign as Vice-President of KI, on 9 September 2019.

Some junior researchers were thrown under the bus, though presumably deservingly. Also Dahlman-Wright’s mentor and former Chairman of the Nobel Assembly, Jan–Åke Gustafsson, got fingered for research misconduct. He departed in 2008 for University of Houston, USA, and left behind some unsavoury affairs, both financial and sexual, details of these scandals are catalogued here. Dahlman-Wright herself was saved: once by Gustaffsson taking the fall for her, and otherwise: she gets to share the research misconduct blame for just one paper. Out of 10 investigated.

The background

In summer 2018, KI’s former rector Dahlman-Wright brought the hammer down in the Paolo Macchiarini affair where the medical university decided that the mere coauthorship on a fraudulent paper constitutes research misconduct. The small-print stipulation being: only if you are a whistleblower, since those certain coauthors, who were best friends with Macchiarini and actively contributed to obfuscation, were actually acquitted. Some of my readers, certain image integrity experts alike the pseudonymous Clare Francis, felt prompted to have a look at the Rector’s publications. They found a lot, which both I and Clare Francis then reported to KI. Further analysis was done by Johan Thyberg, KI professor emeritus and research integrity activist, who also reported his findings to KI.

KI then outsourced the investigation of their leader to Gothenburg University and agreed in advance to accept the verdict. Gothenburg in turn sought advice from the Central Ethics Review Board (CEPN) which invited an external expert from Denmark, Nils Billestrup. The physiology professor discovered much intentional data fabrication, but also that most of it somehow did not affect the conclusions of Dahlman-Wright’s papers. CEPN went even further and threw out even those cases where Billestrup found fraud, to proclaim Dahlman-Wright a very sloppy scientist, yet entirely innocent of all suspicions of research misconduct. This was the CEPN report’s summary (click to download full documents in Swedish and in English):

“In summary, the Expert Group concludes that even if several of the errors and mistakes from which the articles suffer deserve serious criticism, it cannot be considered to be established that the shortcomings are such that they comprise misconduct in research.
The Expert Group notes that the overall impression is that good research practices did not seem to be the norm in the research environment, where responsibility is taken to introduce new researchers to all aspects of a sound scientific approach. The inadequate procedures noted in conjunction with the review of the case were likely a contributing factor to the carelessness that occurred. Even if several of the errors that were noted were difficult to detect, blaming them on a generally stressful situation, as Karin Dahlman-Wright does, is noteworthy. It bears witness to a nonchalant approach to the important task of the research leader.”

Now Gothenburg built on that CEPN report, complimented by their own investigation with their own external advisor Sven Påhlman, cancer research professor at Lund University. This time the verdict is harsher, slightly, though significantly. The qualitative difference being: CEPN verdict meant no consequences at all for Dahlman-Wright because it found no misconduct at all, but the Gothenburg opinion, which did find some, was bound to cost her the position of Vice-President of KI. A predictable forced resignation happened after a crisis meeting at KI, on 9.09.2019. Dahlman-Wright wrote in a final blog post as Vice-President:

“ Shortly after being bullied out of the UK Conservative Party by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government, Nicholas Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill and veteran parliamentarian over nearly 40 years said “I am truly very sad that it should end in this way”. I share these sentiments as I leave my position as vice president at Karolinska Institutet after after 3.5 yrs. The immediate reason is that I am associated with scientific misconduct in one article. I am criticized for not properly checking the publisher’s proofs prior to publication and for being the driver of the project up to 2015, a time ahead of when the experiments for the critized figure where performed.”

Of course the departing Vice-President also added that “the conclusions drawn were not affected by the mistakes“. It is not clear if Professor Dahlman-Wright will now be able to focus on her research after the likely resignation, as her rector-predecessor Anders Hamsten (the one who absolved Macchiarini) did, since even CEPN found the fallen KI Vice-Rector to be incapable of leading a research lab. Maybe Dahlman-Wright will join another former KI rector Harriet Wallberg-Henriksson (the one who recruited Macchiarini) in doing sod all in some governmental office in Stockholm while receiving some of the highest salaries in Swedish public service.

The Gothenburg Report

Only 2 out of 10 investigated papers were found to contain research misconduct, other contain only “errors” or nothing worth bothering about. In the two problematic papers, Dahlman-Wright gets called out on research misconduct only once, and there she shares the blame with her first author PhD student Min Jia. That paper Jia et al Cancer Research 2016 might get retracted. The second case is even more bizarre. Back in 2008, last author Dahlman-Wright was able to use the notorious “contributed track” at PNAS, and thus publish her paper in PNAS without proper peer review, because her coauthor and former mentor Gustafsson is a member of National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Hence Gustafsson became the contributing corresponding author, for which he now is served a misconduct verdict by the Gothenburg investigation. And: that paper Liu et PNAS al 2008 was already corrected earlier this year, so no retraction despite proven fraud! Funny, isn’t it?

This is the Gothenburg report for download, which Thyberg shared after the university demanded a fee from me, despite my being specifically named as whistleblower (together with Thyberg and Clare Francis). There is allegedly no English version yet, though several of the PhD students guilty of misconduct don’t speak Swedish. Hence, a translated summary:

Below is a brief summary of the Council’s position in the articles concerned.
In Article 3, in accordance with the above, the Council considers that there are serious shortcomings such as image duplication, deficiencies in routines for storing original film data, deficiencies in communication with other authors and shortcomings in the review of proofs. The Council’s assessment is that, overall is about gross negligence and thus there is research misconduct in Article 3. The Council considers that the irregularities in question regarding image duplication(s), deficiencies in storage of raw data / original films, deficiencies in communication with other authors and shortcomings in reviewing proofs is primarily derived from first author and corresponding author Min Jia. The Council considers that Karin Dahlman-Wright, in her capacity as a last-signing and corresponding author and project lead (before 2016) also has a responsibility.

In Article 5, the Council considers that deliberate manipulation of images has taken place to beautify the data. The Council considers that there is therefore, research misconduct. The Council considers that the misconduct can be attributed to the first author Yawen Liu and that the research group leader and corresponding author Jan-Åke Gustafsson also has a responsibility. Albin Sandelin is also a correspondent auhtor, but he has no employment affiliation to Kl and is thus not covered by the Council’s investigation of suspected dishonesty in research at Kl.

In Article 7, the Council considers that there is justification for some criticism regarding the presentation of cut blots and presentation
of other molecular weight protein bands. However, the Council does not consider that the main conclusions of the article have been affected
and that all raw data is available. The Council considers that there is justification for some criticism but that there is no research misconduct in Article 7.

The Council’s position is summarized as follows:”

• “There is no research misconduct performed at KI in Articles 6, 8, 9 and 10.
• There are errors in Articles 1-5 and in Article 7. The Council agrees with the criticisms made by external expert and the expert group regarding the lack of procedures regarding storage of research data and management of images within the relevant research groups at Kl. There exists however, no research misconduct in the articles.
• Research misconduct exists in Article 3 and the misconduct can be attributed to Min Jia and Karin Dahlman-Wright at KI.
• Research misconduct exists in Article 5 and the misconduct can be attributed to Yawen Liu and Jan-Åke Gustafsson at Kl.”

The full investigative report from University of Gothenburg on the Dahlman-Wright case is available in Swedish here for download.

Correction: Earlier article version said KDW was still rector in 2018, when the last Macchiarini investigation concluded. She handed over the position to Ottersen in August 2017. 

Update 20.12.2019

Sweden now has a government-appointed central research integrity board, which will start its work on 1 January 2020. This is why KI legal counsellor Helena Scarabin sent me this email regarding the Dahlman-Wright case:

Concerning investigation of potential scientific misconduct

According to the Act (2019:504) on responsibility for good research practice and the examination of misconduct in research, that enters into effect on 1 January 2020, issues of research misconduct are to be examined be a national Board (Board for examination of misconduct in research). According to the transitional provisions to the Act the Board must from 1 January 2020 take over the processing of cases of research misconduct that have been initiated at an entity responsible for research. The entity responsible for research must hand over the document for these cases to the Board.

KI has not completed the preparation of the case and will not take a decision before 31 December 2019. The documents in the case will therefore be submitted to the Board for examination of misconduct in research.

---