Research integrity

The Ballad of Claudio Hetz

"Patients affected with ALS now need to know that we are working for them [...] We feel completely motivated and convinced to dedicate our careers to fight ALS." Claudio Hetz, Photoshop artist.

There is a perfectly scientific theory that the Paris-residing German cancer researcher Guido Kroemer is somehow the centre of the biomedical data fudgery universe. Every questionable scientist seems to be somehow connected to Kroemer: Carlos Lopez-Otin, Didier Raoult, David Ojcius and Josef Penninger are his best friends, while Carlo Croce and Adriano Aguzzi awarded Kroemer a prize of €1 Million in 2019. Kroemer is even connected to Irina Stancheva, via her mentoring coauthor and his personal friend, Sir Adrian Bird. The main argument for this theory of Guidocentricity is that Kroemer never retracted a single paper or suffered any professional consequences despite his impressive PubPeer record of over 60 papers.

Let me now introduce to you another collaborator or maybe even a friend of Kroemer: Claudio Hetz. Hetz is an artist, a blues musician, but his performance artistry does not end there: he is also professor of neuroscience, his goal is to save the lives of sufferers of Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and other neurodegenerative diseases. And be not in doubt: Hetz succeeds, thanks to his creativity. And Photoshop.

A Chile native, Dr Hetz is a bigwig in his country and beyond. He runs, in his own words, “one of the most productive laboratories in Chileat the University of Chile in Santiago (where he is Director of the Biomedical Neuroscience Institute), and is constantly in national news. In USA, Hetz progressed from adjunct professorship to faculty at the Buck Institute in California, where he is presently setting up a new franchise lab. The Chilean genius also is adjunct professor in Harvard and has 24 papers on PubPeer, none retracted.

In 2016, on the occasion of his angling yet another big grant, Hetz was interviewed by the charity which supports him. He said:

Patients affected with ALS now need to know that we are working for them, even though our current scientific efforts will benefit next generations. They can have the hope that we are doing our best effort to contribute to finding a possible cure for this disease, and that families suffering from loss of beloved ones and uncertainty about their future will count on powerful treatments to live a normal life. We feel completely motivated and convinced to dedicate our careers to fight ALS.

You probably now want to see how Hetz finds his cures? He just knows what works, and bends reality to do his bidding. Just like Kroemer.

Kroemer and Hetz means creativity. Original photos: Europa Press, La Tercera.

Like Kroemer, Hetz reached the supernatural status of a genius scientist where physical laws stopped applying. They can publish anything, and nobody will question it. Just last year, Hetz and Kroemer published a paper with mismatched raw data, simply because they can.

Estefanie Dufey, José Manuel Bravo-San Pedro, Cristian Eggers, Matías González-Quiroz, Hery Urra, Alfredo I. Sagredo, Denisse Sepulveda, Philippe Pihán, Amado Carreras-Sureda, Younis Hazari, Eduardo A. Sagredo, Daniela Gutierrez, Cristian Valls, Alexandra Papaioannou, Diego Acosta-Alvear, Gisela Campos, Pedro M. Domingos, Rémy Pedeux, Eric Chevet, Alejandra Alvarez, Patricio Godoy, Peter Walter, Alvaro Glavic, Guido Kroemer, Claudio Hetz Genotoxic stress triggers the activation of IRE1α-dependent RNA decay to modulate the DNA damage response Nature Communications (2020) doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-15694-y 

Sure, the raw data shows a completely different P-eIF2A result from the main figure. But then again, the pay-to-play pseudo-elite journal Nature Communications recently made their stance on research ethics by taking papers on eugenics or from zombie scientists like Kathrin Maedler and Maria Fousteri, despite past fraud findings. The Editor-in-Chief Elisa Di Raineri then blocked me on Twitter for slandering her valued paying customers. Why shouldn’t she accept such quality science from Kroemer and Hetz if they are paying $5500 for the service?

Now you know what you must do to publish in a Nature-themed journal. But not just there, here an older Kroemer and Hetz collaboration:

Diego A Rodriguez, Sebastian Zamorano, Fernanda Lisbona, Diego Rojas-Rivera, Hery Urra, Juan R Cubillos-Ruiz, Ricardo Armisen, Daniel R Henriquez, Emily H Cheng, Michal Letek, Tomas Vaisar, Thergiory Irrazabal, Christian Gonzalez-Billault, Anthony Letai, Felipe X Pimentel-Muiños, Guido Kroemer, Claudio Hetz BH3-only proteins are part of a regulatory network that control the sustained signalling of the unfolded protein response sensor IRE1α The EMBO Journal (2012) – doi: 10.1038/emboj.2012.84 

Cloned gel bands, it seems, and further analysis on Pubpeer strengthens the suspicion. These authors were deemed so important that also the rule “The journal does not permit citation of “Data not shown”” did not apply to them. Will there be a correction? While at it, maybe the publisher EMBO can gather courage to look into this paper by Hetz again:

Karen Castillo, Diego Rojas-Rivera, Fernanda Lisbona, Benjamín Caballero, Melissa Nassif, Felipe A Court, Sebastian Schuck, Consuelo Ibar, Peter Walter, Jimena Sierralta, Alvaro Glavic, Claudio Hetz BAX inhibitor-1 regulates autophagy by controlling the IRE1α branch of the unfolded protein response The EMBO Journal (2011) doi: 10.1038/emboj.2011.318 

So far, only Figure 6D was corrected in 2017, the authors warned that “It is worth mentioning that the lysotracker signal was never significant in the non‐treated conditions“:

Maybe you notice that the image was not just accidentally copy-pasted, but shrunk and its red channel boosted. The falsification apparently did not affect the conclusions, you see, it was “never significant“. But what about Figure 6H, flagged in May 2020, what with its copy-pasted gel bands?

Oh I know, it’s merely a loading control, which was “never significant”, too! Don’t laugh, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is why there was no follow-up action from the journal till today.

Now I would like to show you a paper from the Hetz lab where the “raw” data (or what was passed off as raw data) has been apparently generated in Photoshop, to satisfy those petty journal requirements.

Hery Urra , Daniel R. Henriquez, José Cánovas, David Villarroel-Campos, Amado Carreras-Sureda, Eduardo Pulgar, Emiliano Molina, Younis M. Hazari, Celia M. Limia, Sebastián Alvarez-Rojas, Ricardo Figueroa, Rene L. Vidal, Diego A. Rodriguez, Claudia A. Rivera, Felipe A. Court, Andrés Couve, Ling Qi, Eric Chevet, Ryoko Akai, Takao Iwawaki, Miguel L. Concha, Álvaro Glavic, Christian Gonzalez-Billault, Claudio Hetz IRE1α governs cytoskeleton remodelling and cell migration through a direct interaction with filamin A Nature Cell Biology (2018) doi:10.1038/s41556-018-0141-0 

Supplementary Fig. S3D: The dashed boxes were placed by authors to show which gel bands were used for the main figures. Yet the middle and the right images are identical (not just in the re-boxed areas) except for the four extra bands. This can only happen in Photoshop, a same gel re-probed and re-stained would never look so identical to the tiniest spot and smudge.
Supplementary Fig. 8: an eight lane loading control gel for a 7 lane experiment? Unlike the figure suggests, those are 3 physically different gels anyway.

The paper was corrected in 2018, to reassure the readers that “The authors declare no competing interests.” There is no need for this elite Nature family journal to correct anything else, as it seems.

Update: a reader informed me that one of this 2018 paper’s authors is Andres Couve Correa, professor at the University of Chile, who in December 2018 became Chile’s minister for research.

That mismatch in gel lane number was not a one-off. Such things happen when you accidentally mis-load your gel to obtain the desired result and then urgently need a nice equally loaded control (here, actin), which you pull out from your “loading control library” in a hurry and forget to at least count the gel lanes. Not that anyone noticed it during peer review. Or maybe they didn’t mind, remember: rules don’t apply to Hetz. So here another such situation:

Mauricio Torres, Karen Castillo, Ricardo Armisén, Andrés Stutzin, Claudio Soto, Claudio Hetz Prion protein misfolding affects calcium homeostasis and sensitizes cells to endoplasmic reticulum stress PLoS ONE (2010) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015658 

Maybe Hetz likes to play practical jokes, because this lane number mismatch seems to be his signature prank. And academia loves it!

And now, some unhygienic insights into how sausages (aka research papers) are made:

Rene L. Vidal, Alicia Figueroa, Felipe A. Court, Peter Thielen, Claudia Molina, Craig Wirth, Benjamin Caballero, Roberta Kiffin, Juan Segura-Aguilar, Ana Maria Cuervo, Laurie H. Glimcher, Claudio Hetz Targeting the UPR transcription factor XBP1 protects against Huntington’s disease through the regulation of FoxO1 and autophagy Human Molecular Genetics (2012) doi: 10.1093/hmg/dds040

The Supplemental data of that paper was stealthily modified right after Paul Brookes flagged the following issues on his now defunct Science Fraud website:

Do you see that the ATF4 gel is not cloned 1:1, but only two bands in it are identical? Seven years ago, Brookes commented on PubPeer:

So this article was originally flagged on http://www.science-fraud.org, back in summer 2012.

Coincidentally (some might even say magically), on the exact same day that the supplemental data for this paper was modified, a commenter showed up at the site and left a comment claiming that the blog post was a lie, there was never any problem with the paper and they demanded the post be taken down. Perhaps not surprisingly, the commenter’s IP address mapped to Santiago Chile, where Dr. Hetz is based. How did this coincidence happen? Are we expected to believe that a random reader (not Dr. Hetz) just happened to read the newly modified article on the day it was released, then just happened to come to my website and write a flustered comment about how the claims being made were invalid?

This was all documented in a follow up post on the site, which was then sent to the journal, demanding an explanation for how exactly this “correction” had occurred without being logged on the journal’s pages or on PubMed. Needless to say, the journal offered a boilerplate “we’ll look into it” response, and that was that. Over a year later and no response, no update, and this simply wonderful paper is still out there with absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever that the original version contained duplicated blots. Follow up emails to the journal using my real name have gone unanswered.

But hey, there’s nothing wrong right? Despite having 6 papers called out in public on my site as containing duplicated western blots and other apparent image fabrications, Dr. Hetz is doing great. His group has 7 post-doc’s, 12 grad’ students, 5 techs/admins, all supported by money from the ALS foundation, Michael J Fox Parkinson’s foundation, Alzheimer’s Association, the Christopher Reeve Foundation, and the Chilean government. The message here is clear – if you can persuade journals to make corrections without publicizing the fact, you can get ahead in science.

Now, you might wonder what kind of a rotten crook of an editor would stealthily replace falsified figures, possibly to help a cheater sue his accuser for libel. The Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford University Press journal Human Molecular Genetics (HMG) is Dame Kay Davies of Oxford, who herself

  • published fabricated data, including in her own HMG, and was exempt from investigation by her University of Oxford on the grounds the criticised papers were more than 3 years old;
  • retaliated against a whistleblower who confidentially informed her of data manipulation in HMG, by reporting the whistleblower to their accused superior for due punishment, while refusing to do anything about that paper.

Dame Kay suffered exactly zero consequences for her perfectly upper class behaviour, because this is England and this is also how academia operates. The rules don’t apply to her also.

Aside of Kroemer, Hetz has another friend in France. He coauthored several papers with the cancer researcher Eric Chevet from the INSERM institute in Rennes. Like Hetz, Chevet specialises on studying cellular stress of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), he also has his own PubPeer record). Here one joint paper:

Stéphanie Lhomond, Tony Avril, Nicolas Dejeans, Konstantinos Voutetakis, Dimitrios Doultsinos, Mari McMahon, Raphaël Pineau, Joanna Obacz, Olga Papadodima, Florence Jouan, Heloise Bourien, Marianthi Logotheti, Gwénaële Jégou, Néstor Pallares‐Lupon, Kathleen Schmit, Pierre‐Jean Le Reste, Amandine Etcheverry, Jean Mosser, Kim Barroso, Elodie Vauléon, Marion Maurel, Afshin Samali, John B Patterson, Olivier Pluquet, Claudio Hetz, Véronique Quillien, Aristotelis Chatziioannou, Eric Chevet Dual IRE 1 RN ase functions dictate glioblastoma development EMBO Molecular Medicine (2018) doi: 10.15252/emmm.201707929

Now, a loading control from one gel was apparently flipped and shifted to stand in as loading control of another gel. I will help EMBO Press here: that loading control was probably “never significant” either. Now, a source told me that Chevet is not only best friends with Hetz, but was also was involved in the removal of his Rennes colleague, Patrick Legembre, after Legembre was accused of bullying and caught with manipulated data. My source finds this ironic.

Just so you don’t start blaming junior scientists for putting naughty stuff in Dr Hetz’ papers: much of his PubPeer record stems from the time when he was junior scientist himself. Like this, when Hetz did postdoc in the Dana Farber/Harvard lab of the late giant of cancer research, Stanley Korsmeyer.

Claudio Hetz, Paula Bernasconi, Jill Fisher, Ann-Hwee Lee, Michael C Bassik, Bruno Antonsson, Gabriel S Brandt, Neal N Iwakoshi, Anna Schinzel, Laurie H Glimcher , Stanley J Korsmeyer Proapoptotic BAX and BAK modulate the unfolded protein response by a direct interaction with IRE1alpha Science (2006) doi: 10.1126/science.1123480

There are duplicated gel bands and lots of splicing.

Figure 2B

What does all that gel splicing mean? Oh, nothing serious, just some lanes showed wrong results and need to be replaced probably. And of course there is the signature panel with alternating lane number: anything between 7 and 11 lanes is correct, no peer reviewer would dare to object to a Korsmeyer paper.

Now, Korsmeyer died in 2005, this is why when the paper with its falsified data was published after his death, Hetz was the corresponding author. Not a nice thing to do to a dead person (but apparently common practice in academia, there are other examples on my site, read here and here). As it happened, Korsmeyer also trained another artist, Atan Gross from Israel (read here about this Weizmann Institute researcher).

The latest paper Hetz published with Korsmeyer was in 2012, seven years after the latter’s death. The following one appeared also post-mortem, it has a spliced gel and Hetz’s signature prank of mismatched gel lanes:

C Hetz, P Thielen, J Fisher, P Pasinelli, R H Brown, S Korsmeyer, L Glimcher The proapoptotic BCL-2 family member BIM mediates motoneuron loss in a model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis Cell death and differentiation (2007)
doi: 10.1038/sj.cdd.4402166 

 

Here another work of art from the Korsmeyer period:

Claudio Hetz, Pierre-Alain Vitte, Agnes Bombrun, Tatiana K. Rostovtseva, Sylvie Montessuit, Agnes Hiver, Matthias K. Schwarz, Dennis J. Church, Stanley J. Korsmeyer, Jean-Claude Martinou, Bruno Antonsson Bax channel inhibitors prevent mitochondrion-mediated apoptosis and protect neurons in a model of global brain ischemia Journal of Biological Chemistry (2005) doi: 10.1074/jbc.m505843200

JBC generates the PDF in a away which allows you to disassemble composite graphics into the fragments they were assembled from. Like fake gels, which can be pulled apart.
Split in the middle, sure, but look, Stauro blot is completely fake.
Or fake microscopy images, stitched together from various bits and pieces by some cheater.

And guess what? Only the flow cytometry in Figure 5A was corrected (“This error does not change the interpretation of the results presented in this figure or any of the conclusions of the paper“), in 2012 after Paul Brookes flagged it on his now defunct site. Despite later PubPeer evidence above, in August 2020 Hetz insisted there were no other issues in that paper.

Going back in time, here is something from Hetz’ PhD period, recognised by the Chilean Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology with the Herman Neimeyer Medal, for him as the best PhD student in Biomedical Sciences of Chile in 2003. Who wants some flawed cytometry?

Claudio Hetz, María Rosa Bono, Luis Felipe Barros, Rosalba Lagos Microcin E492, a channel-forming bacteriocin from Klebsiella pneumoniae, induces apoptosis in some human cell lines Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2002) doi: 10.1073/pnas.052709699

Many dots of the “NT” experiment are the same as many dots of the “MccWE492” experiment. Though it must also be acknowledged that many other dots aren’t.”
parts of the plot in 1A are more similar to 1D than would be expected by chance. Other parts are adequately dissimilar.

Another one, because many of my readers are PhD students who need to learn how to succeed in academia the proper way. Watch, children, and learn, so you don’t become failed scientists:

Claudio A Hetz, Martin Hunn, Patricio Rojas, Vicente Torres, Lisette Leyton, Andrew F G Quest Caspase-dependent initiation of apoptosis and necrosis by the Fas receptor in lymphoid cells: onset of necrosis is associated with delayed ceramide increase Journal of Cell Science (2002) doi: 10.1242/jcs.00153

Same flow cytometry file, re-gated?
Cells digitally inserted?
Copy-pasted lanes?
Cack-handed eraser work, look, even part of the cell is gone?

As graduate student, Hetz received Chilean fellowship funding to do his PhD abroad, in Switzerland. Once there, he obtained a Federal Swiss Confederation scholarship to do his PhD research at the Serono Pharmaceutical Research Institute in Geneva. This was where Hetz met his Chilean compatriot Cladio Soto, who is now professor at the University of Texas MacGovern Medical School. Soto of course is also Photoshop expert with his own PubPeer record. The collaboration was very productive, as you can see:

Claudio Hetz, Milene Russelakis-Carneiro, Kinsey Maundrell, Joaquin Castilla, Claudio Soto Caspase-12 and endoplasmic reticulum stress mediate neurotoxicity of pathological prion protein The EMBO Journal (2003) doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdg537 

These mismatched gel lanes again, what sense of humour. This also is quality science Made in Switzerland, by Hetz and Soto:

Claudio Hetz, Milene Russelakis-Carneiro, Sébastien Wälchli, Sonia Carboni, Elisabeth Vial-Knecht, Kinsey Maundrell, Joaquín Castilla, Claudio Soto The disulfide isomerase Grp58 is a protective factor against prion neurotoxicity Journal of Neuroscience (2005) doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.4090-04.2005 

Can you see those bands spliced into Frankenstein gels, indicated by red arrows? It had to be, Journal of Neuroscience is an elite venue in its field, the authors needed the most convincingly fabricated results to pass peer review there. The conclusions, at least those that Claudio Hetz is an untouchable genius, remain unaffected.

More from the two Claudios, to round up. A fake immunohistochemistry image in Cell, a top-rank journal which could not give less of a toss, and a spliced gel while bullshitting the readers into believing they look at same protein blot re-probed:

Joaquín Castilla, Paula Saá, Claudio Hetz, Claudio Soto In vitro generation of infectious scrapie prions Cell (2005) doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.02.011 
Claudio Hetz, Joaquín Castilla, Claudio Soto Perturbation of endoplasmic reticulum homeostasis facilitates prion replication Journal of Biological Chemistry (2007) doi: 10.1074/jbc.m611909200

The fact that neither Hetz nor Kroemer ever retracted paper while bagging one cash award and grant after another, should give you, dear reader, pause to ponder what the hell are you doing in science, taking away resources from productive geniuses like these two. You parasite.

Update 13.01.2020

Reader alerted me to a statement Hetz published on his own lab website (referencing papers up to 2018, pdf generated on 11 August 2020). There, Hetz addresses the PubPeer evidence for each paper, and explains that gel splicing and band copy-pasting was “a normal practice 10 years ago” and everything else was either “unintentional errors” or false alarms for which no correction is needed. The editors at Nature Cell Biology, EMBO Press, PNAS, Society of Neuroscience, and of course also HMG accepted his explanations, Hetz even posts their emails. He also mentions:

“For full transparence we also requested an ethic investigation to the Faculty of Medicine. An inter-institutional commission was generated with no-conflict of interest, and concluded that errors when existed where [sic!] unintentional.”

It seems, that investigation by the university of Chile took place in 2017, possibly with the outcome that the raw data deposition and review mandate began in June 2017, because Hetz writes on his lab site:

In addition, since 2017 as part of this policy all lab books are revised once a moth and all image splicing and statistical analysis and number of replicates are indicated in figure legends.”

Here some screenshots from Hetz’ August 2020 statement:

Screenshots from Hetz’ August 2020 statement

Update 15.01.2021

I now commented on the above PDF, the concerns remain. Please download the file, my own comments are in red.

Hetz’ institute issued yesterday a statement in support of its director as reaction to this article, and referencing earlier reporting by Paul Brookes. The great man himself will soon reply on PubPeer.

A translation is available here.

Update 18.01.2021

Regarding this case, the University of Chile issued a press release today:

“The university must be able to guarantee that the information that emanates from it is transparent, objective and truthful, so that the Rectorate will implement an independent investigative commission of the highest scientific and academic level, which provides guarantees of transparency and objectivity in order to verify, clarify, and propose the necessary measures to prevent any potential laxity or lack of scientific rigour in this case.”

Update 19.01.2021

Another university press release from same day announced about the investigative commission:

The group must be made up of academic researchers, internal and external to the University, with the required technical skills and working completely independently.”

More Hetz’ co-authored papers were criticised on PubPeer:

Cloned gel lanes. Last author from Biomedical Neuroscience Institute, where Hetz is director.
Rodrigo Herrera-Molina, Renato Frischknecht, Horacio Maldonado, Constanze I. Seidenbecher, Eckart D. Gundelfinger, Claudio Hetz, María De La Luz Aylwin, Pascal Schneider, Andrew F. G. Quest, Lisette Leyton Astrocytic αVβ3 integrin inhibits neurite outgrowth and promotes retraction of neuronal processes by clustering Thy-1 PLoS ONE (2012) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034295

Hetz the only co-author from Chile. Gift authroship on fabricated western blots?
Mathieu Nivon, Loïc Fort, Pascale Muller, Emma Richet, Stéphanie Simon, Baptiste Guey, Maëlenn Fournier, André-Patrick Arrigo, Claudio Hetz, Julie D. Atkin, Carole Kretz-Remy NFκB is a central regulator of protein quality control in response to protein aggregation stresses via autophagy modulation Molecular Biology of the Cell (2016) doi: 10.1091/mbc.e15-12-0835 
The important tubulin loading control is a “library” one.
Clara Quiroga, Damian Gatica, Felipe Paredes, Roberto Bravo, Rodrigo Troncoso, Zully Pedrozo, Andrea E. Rodriguez, Barbra Toro, Mario Chiong, Jose Miguel Vicencio, Claudio Hetz, Sergio Lavandero Herp depletion protects from protein aggregation by up-regulating autophagy Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (2013) doi: 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2013.09.006 

Update 20.01.2021.

Another paper flagged on PubPeer, and what coathor Dr Hetz had there! None other but Sanofi’s R&D Head John C Reed, who has an impressive record of problematic papers from his startup past.

Fernanda Lisbona, Diego Rojas-Rivera, Peter Thielen, Sebastian Zamorano, Derrick Todd, Fabio Martinon, Alvaro Glavic, Christina Kress, Jonathan H. Lin, Peter Walter, John C. Reed, Laurie H. Glimcher, Claudio Hetz BAX inhibitor-1 is a negative regulator of the ER stress sensor IRE1alpha Molecular Cell (2009) doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2009.02.017 


Donate!

If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like (2x=€10; 5x=€25). Or donate to the Hetz lab, they seem to be curing brain diseases!

€5.00

40 comments on “The Ballad of Claudio Hetz

  1. Athell Cornish-Bowden

    If you haven’t seen it already you’ll probably be interested in the following article, where Juan-Carlos Letelier (full disclosure; a friend of mine) discusses the Hetz case:

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349992414_CienciaEnChile2021

    Like

  2. Monodón

    Dear Leonid,
    Thank you for your work and my apologizes for hiding my real name, the scientific community here is small and will protect to big names.
    I really think your work is helpful and necessary to unmask misbehaviors that undermine credibility, while making horrible use of public funds that scarce, leaving honest, usually low profile but smart researchers with difficulties to obtain funding.
    The case of Claudio Hetz is well known and recurrent, however he has only been protected by the deans, mayors, and research vice-chancellors.
    Fortunately, we have never crossed our scientific paths, but I have listened (since I was an undergard to now as a professor) the calvary of people that tried to repeat or continue the research that Claudio Hetz started during his undergrad thesis and Grad thesis. I truly believe that Hetz´s advisors should speak the true. Prove of that is the clumsy manipulation of figures seen in Hetz et al PNAS 2002 when Hetz was an under Grad. This behavior has only escalated with time to the many fraudulent presentation of data exposed in Pubpeer.
    I am surprised that University of Chile, FONDECYT (now call ANID, agencia nacional de investigación y Desarrollo) and the scientific societies remained silent about Hetz case. I hope the ethics committee of each competent institution analyze this case with the highest degree of seriousness, as Hetz’s misconduct is chronic and may be due to a pathologic condition, that directly or indirectly is affecting others.

    Like

  3. Pingback: Las correcciones de Claudio Hetz : Clipping – Prensa Bib Central

  4. pauta.cl/nacional/claudio-hetz-cientifico-chileno-denuncias-universidad-de-chile

    Like

    • “It is precisely that same task that Hetz devoted himself to for two months after the complaint inFor Better Science. To do this, he summoned a work team to seek scientific support for the experiments that were questioned. With this material, he was able to send formal responses to the scientific journals where his articles are published.”
      So they just let him replace the figures with new ones?

      Like

  5. Published yesterday on El Mercurio… wondering who`s the French researcher…

    ”Polémica lleva a la revisión de las medidas de control de la investigación científica:
    La próxima semana estarán las conclusiones de la comisión que investiga el caso de Claudio Hetz
    El grupo está estudiando las denuncias de manipulación de datos en varios trabajos del científico chileno, realizadas por un blog internacional de divulgación científica.
    Lorena Guzmán H.
    L a próxima semana, la comisión independiente convocada por la Universidad de Chile para investigar las acusaciones de manipulación de información en los trabajos publicados por el científico Claudio Hetz debería entregar sus conclusiones. Ellas dilucidarán si efectivamente se produjo un manejo intencional y si este afectó o no a los resultados publicados.

    A mediados de enero pasado, “El Mercurio” dio a conocer la polémica que surgió a propósito de la denuncia del blog forbetterscience.com, que aseguraba que varios de los trabajos publicados en revistas internacionales por Hetz, director del Instituto de Neurociencia Biomédica (BNI) y profesor titular de la Universidad de Chile, tenían datos manipulados.

    Tras la denuncia, mientras el BNI emitió un comunicado asegurando que los comentarios del blog eran “parciales y malintencionados”, la Universidad de Chile, a través de la Vicerrectoría de Investigación, anunció la conformación de una comisión independiente para analizar el caso. Los resultados de su trabajo debieron haber estado a fines de marzo pasado, pero ello no sucedió.

    La razón es que la comisión se constituyó finalmente en marzo, explica a “El Mercurio” Flavio Salazar, vicerrector de Investigación y Desarrollo de la U. de Chile. “Fue difícil encontrar a los miembros, los que debían conocer bien la disciplina y sus metodologías, pero también no debían tener relación ni con el investigador ni con la Facultad de Medicina”, detalla (ver recuadro).

    Desde que la comisión de cuatro integrantes comenzó su trabajo, ha estado en constantes conversaciones con Claudio Hetz para que aclare las dudas, asegura el vicerrector. Respecto de las posibles consecuencias que resulten del informe, la autoridad asegura que se evaluarán las acciones a seguir, si fuesen necesarias, con los datos en mano. Pero, además, aseguró que “las conclusiones se harán públicas para la tranquilidad de la comunidad científica y para asegurar la transparencia del proceso”.

    Si bien no fue posible contactar directamente a Claudio Hetz, su laboratorio respondió en su nombre a las preguntas de este medio, asegurando que el científico reunió un equipo que trabajó durante dos meses “para encontrar los respaldos científicos de los experimentos cuestionados en las publicaciones y así generar respuestas formales que determinaran si se cometieron o no errores”.

    El Lab Hetz asegura que para la mayoría de los cuestionamientos “no fue necesario corregir los artículos científicos dado que no se encontró un error o una alteración de las conclusiones de los estudios”.

    Sin embargo, continúa la declaración, “se detectaron errores menores donde los editores de las revistas correspondientes aceptaron publicar correcciones a cinco artículos”. Revistas como Autophagy y Nature Communications ya lo hicieron para trabajos publicados en 2013 y 2020, respectivamente.

    Prevención a futuro

    Aunque no son ampliamente conocidos, más allá de la comunidad científica, actualmente sí existen mecanismos para resguardar la integridad, la ética y la excelencia de la investigación científica en el país, asegura Aisen Etcheverry, directora de la Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID).

    En términos simples, son tres etapas. La Declaración de Singapur sobre la Integridad en la Investigación, a la que adhieren todos los científicos que reciben financiamiento de la ANID; la evaluación de expertos nacionales e internacionales de los proyectos, desde su postulación hasta su cierre, y los procesos internos de evaluación antes de la publicación de las revistas científicas de impacto internacional.

    “Pero a medida que la ciencia y la investigación se van complejizando, también lo hacen la forma de hacer controles. Por ello esto es una conversación abierta”, explica Etcheverry. Por lo mismo, agrega, la ANID junto con las universidades están evaluando la forma de fortalecer esas capacidades.

    Por su parte, la Vicerrectoría de Investigación de la Universidad de Chile está trabajando en un proyecto para conformar una estructura centralizada permanente que vele por la integridad de la investigación en dicha casa de estudio y que pueda evaluar no solo controversias de manipulación de datos, sino también de la relación tutor-estudiante o de disputa de propiedad intelectual, entre varios otros, cuenta Flavio Salazar. Se espera, asegura, que la iniciativa sea aprobada prontamente.

    Evaluadores

    La comisión que está evaluando las denuncias contra Hetz está compuesta por un investigador de otra facultad (no Medicina) de la U. de Chile, uno de la U. Católica, un científico chileno que trabaja en Francia y un especialista fuera de las universidades. Sus nombres no fueron informados para mantener la independencia de su labor.

    El laboratorio de Claudio Hetz investiga los mecanismos de dolencias como el párkinson, alzhéimer, enfermedad de Huntington y esclerosis lateral amiotrófica (ELA).”

    https://digital.elmercurio.com/2021/06/26/A/HB400NP9/light?gt=001201

    Like

  6. laurence harang

    Eric Chevet ?

    Like

  7. Laurence

    I just saw it on pubpeer

    Dual IRE 1 RN ase functions dictate glioblastoma development
    EMBO Molecular Medicine (2018) – 4 Comments
    pubmed: 29311133 doi: 10.15252/emmm.201707929 issn: 1757-4676 issn: 1757-4684
    Stéphanie Lhomond author has email , Tony Avril author has email , Nicolas Dejeans , Konstantinos Voutetakis author has email , Dimitrios Doultsinos author has email , Mari McMahon , Raphaël Pineau , Joanna Obacz , Olga Papadodima author has email , Florence Jouan author has email , Heloise Bourien , Marianthi Logotheti , Gwénaële Jégou , Néstor Pallares‐Lupon author has email , Kathleen Schmit , Pierre‐Jean Le Reste , Amandine Etcheverry author has email , Jean Mosser author has email , Kim Barroso , Elodie Vauléon author has email , Marion Maurel author has email, Afshin Samali author has email, John B Patterson, Olivier Pluquet author has email, Claudio Hetz author has email, Véronique Quillien author has email, Aristotelis Chatziioannou author has email, Eric Chevet

    #4 Corticaria Serrata

    The questions are why the cleaved fragments observed IRE1 western blot for RNS96.1 are not shown and discussed in this paper, while those from RNS87.1 and RNS85.1 are highlighted (not the same MW so does not fit to the conclusion)?
    Also, Why the only line in the RNS130 Western blot matching to the original blots corresponds to the Q780* mutant ? The original blot shown by the authors definitively do not match and suggest that not only actin blots have been copy/Invert/paste but also that IRE1 data have been modified.
    Could the authors or EMBO Mol med clarify these points?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: