Research integrity University Affairs

Moravian Rhapsody

"Please, can you tell me more about the web page and mechanism behind? Is there any “scheme” of scanning published papers?" asks Professor Vojtech Adam. Yes, it's Elisabeth Bik.

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landside,
No escape from reality

Queen (1975)

Vojtech Adam, a star of Czechia’s cancer and nanotechnology research, just won the election to the rectorship of the Mendel University in Brno. Instead of celebrating and announcing his vision for the university which he currently serves as Vice-Rector for Research, Adam has been given 3 weeks to explain the evidence of research fraud found in over 20 of his papers. Then a joint investigation will begin, by his Mendel University and two other research institutions Adam is since recently affiliated with: the Brno University of Technology (BUT) and the Central European Institute of Technology (CEITEC), based also in Brno.

Almost all PubPeer comments were posted by Elisabeth Bik, some are over a year old. Adam, a holder of a €1.4 million ERC research grant, whose ORCID record shows over 900 co-authored papers, himself claims to “have never fraud or falsify data.” and is busy contacting all his co-authors for raw data and explanations.

This will be the second story of faulty nanotechnology in Czechia I report. Before, we had the affair of Radek Zbořil at the Palacky University in Olomouc, also in the Moravia region. The difference is: Zboril was exposed by inside whistleblowers with exact knowledge and expert understanding of the science Zboril abused, some from inside Zboril’s lab with access to raw data. In Adam’s case, the digital image data fudgery in his papers was exposed by Elisabeth Bik who simply looked at some of the figures.

A a caveat first: our hero, the star nanotheranostics researcher Vojtech Adam, is not to be confused with the Czech politician and former Health Minister Adam Vojtech. We shall now start, because this is cancer research after all, with what might be the worst toxic dump in the field of cancer fraud, the journal Oncotarget:

Miguel Angel Merlos Rodrigo , Simona Dostalova , Hana Buchtelova , Vladislav Strmiska , Petr Michalek , Sona Krizkova , Ales Vicha , Pavla Jencova , Tomas Eckschlager , Marie Stiborova , Zbynek Heger , Vojtech Adam Comparative gene expression profiling of human metallothionein-3 up-regulation in neuroblastoma cells and its impact on susceptibility to cisplatin Oncotarget (2018) doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23333 

Bik: “Yellow arrows: the three bands in the GAPDH panel all look very similar to each other, albeit in different orientation or differently cut-off.”
Bik, crediting Petr Svoboda on Twitter: “Blue boxes: The two hMT-3 panels appear to show the same specimens, albeit rotated 90 degrees and at a different aspect ratio.”
Bik: “The top three microarray panels all look very similar to each other – marked with red boxes. It would be expected that three different cell lines might show similar gene expression, but would they expected to be that similar?

Treating cancer and bacterial infections with metal ligand drugs is Adam’s speciality, for which he is regularly celebrated in Czech media. In 2018, he received an ERC grant of almost €1.4 million, titled “Towards the Understanding a Metal-Tumour-Metabolism” where Adam promised:

“The precise description of the tumour related pathways coping with metal ions based on metallothioneins will direct new highly effective treatment strategies.”

A year ago, in 2020, that prestigious EU grant earned Adam a PI position at CEITEC, where he set up a Smart Nanodevices research group. This in turn automatically got him a his second professorship, at the CEITEC-affiliated Brno University of Technology (BUT). As Adam said in a public announcement:

Currently, the Smart Nanodevices research group is divided into five smaller teams that deal with a range of issues from medicine to the environment to nanofertilizers. “But we all try to use modern materials,

Modern materials? How many Photoshop licences does Adam need for his labs to compete with the bigwig cheaters abroad? He explained in a press release:

“why we are not reaching the level of giants like Oxford and Cambridge is primarily a question of funding. Their science is much better funded. And science is simply about money. “

It is the indeed the high art of burning enormous sums of research money to produce phony science while protecting the cheaters at all costs which elite places like Oxford and Cambridge did perfect! Look, they even recruit the very best people from over the world:

What Bik found in Adam’s papers are sometimes really lazy image duplications, often just slightly shifted (Buchtelova et al 2018), or darkened:

Ana Maria Jimenez Jimenez , Amitava Moulick , Sukanya Bhowmick , Vladislav Strmiska , Milica Gagic , Zuzana Horakova , Rom Kostrica , Michal Masarik , Zbynek Heger , Vojtech Adam One-step detection of human papilloma viral infection using quantum dot-nucleotide interaction specificity Talanta (2019) doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2019.07.006 

Bik: “Three panels in Figure 3A, showing prostrate cancer cell lines mixed with QDs, look similar to panels in Figure 3B, showing breast cancer cells mixed with QDs.

But no, of course Adam is really the hapless innocent victim of a conspiracy by everyone else here. He replied swiftly to my email about his growing PubPeer record:

During my career, I have written and co-authored hundreds of scientific papers. I am glad that there are projects verifying the quality of the data published in there. It is important to have such an objective and independent control. I can honestly say that I have never fraud or falsify data. In the cases you have mentioned below, I am extremely sorry and, at the moment, I have already started to communicate with the co-authors as well as editorial offices to prepare errata of the issues identified in the published papers.

Apparently, having produced “hundreds of papers” is an excuse to occasionally getting caught on having published fraud. The sheer amount of papers also conveniently deters image sleuths from checking – too much work.

The next paper however has been commented upon already a year ago, and the tack next to Adam’s and other authors’ names suggests they have been notified by email right away:

Zbynek Heger , Miguel Angel Merlos Rodrigo , Petr Michalek , Hana Polanska , Michal Masarik , Vitezslav Vit , Mariana Plevova , Dalibor Pacik , Tomas Eckschlager , Marie Stiborova , Vojtech Adam Sarcosine Up-Regulates Expression of Genes Involved in Cell Cycle Progression of Metastatic Models of Prostate Cancer PLoS ONE (2016)  doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165830 

Bik: “Aqua boxes: Two panels look very similar if one of them is in mirror image

Probably just a mistake, easily fixable with a correction? Wait!

Bik: “Several panels or parts of panels appear to look more similar to each other than expected, as shown here with colored boxes.”

Adam however insisted in an email that he first “was notified on Monday“, i.e. on 18 October 2021. He then however seemed to agree that he might have overlooked the notifications, having at least 4 work email addresses. He also announced:

I am going to check all raw data. I will do it one by one to solve all issues.

Adam later clarified:

At the papers, where I am not corresponding author, I will contact the responsible colleague to discuss it.

Gosh, so much to discuss here:

Miguel A. Merlos Rodrigo, Vladislav Strmiska , Eva Horackova , Hana Buchtelova , Petr Michalek , Marie Stiborova , Tomas Eckschlager, Vojtech Adam, Zbynek Heger Sarcosine influences apoptosis and growth of prostate cells via cell-type specific regulation of distinct sets of genes The Prostate (2018) doi: 10.1002/pros.23450 

Bik: “Boxes and arrows of the same color focus attention to bands that look more similar than expected.”

The key author on these above papers, Zbyněk Heger, is associate professor at Mendel University, now also affiliated with CEITEC, where he is senior researcher at Adam’s “Smart Nanodevices” team. You will keep encountering the name of this mentee of Adam’s. Another name you will keep encountering is that of René Kizek, professor of pharmacology at the Masaryk University in Brno, who in turn himself is the mentor of Adam.

Dagmar Chudobova, Simona Dostalova, Branislav Ruttkay-Nedecky , Roman Guran, Miguel Angel Merlos Rodrigo , Katerina Tmejova , Sona Krizkova , Ondrej Zitka, Vojtech Adam, Rene Kizek The effect of metal ions on Staphylococcus aureus revealed by biochemical and mass spectrometric analyses Microbiological Research (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2014.08.003

Bik: “Concern about Figure 5B. Image contrast enhanced by me to bring out details.
Pink arrows: Vertical sharp transitions appear to be visible between lanes.
Green boxes: The RAg and Rcd lanes look more similar than expected.
Cyan boxes: The RCu and RZn lanes look more similar than expected, albeit shown at different exposure times

Fake gels seem to be a tradition, here another one from Kizek and Adam:

Soňa Křížková, Michal Masařík, Tomáš Eckschlager , Vojtěch Adam , René Kizek Effects of redox conditions and zinc(II) ions on metallothionein aggregation revealed by chip capillary electrophoresis Journal of chromatography. A (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.07.022

Bik: “Blue boxes the markers in Figures 1B and 2A look very similar, although the rest of the gel looks different. This may suggest that the lanes were not run on the same gels, making it hard to know the exact sizes of the bands in the other lanes.
Red boxes: In Figure 2A, the 15 mM and 25 mM Zn(III) lanes look remarkably similar.

I bet they won’t have the raw data for that paper because it is just about older than 10 years. But what about the rest?

Lukas Nejdl , Branislav Ruttkay-Nedecky , Jiri Kudr , Sona Krizkova , Kristyna Smerkova , Simona Dostalova , Marketa Vaculovicova , Pavel Kopel , Josef Zehnalek , Libuse Trnkova , Petr Babula , Vojtech Adam, Rene Kizek DNA interaction with zinc(II) ions International Journal of Biological Macromolecules (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.12.013

Bik: “Yellow boxes: Lanes a and b appear to look very similar between Figures 2B and 2D. Note the position of several light dots around 400 and 1100-1200 bps. Also note that although lanes 2 might be showing the same sample, lanes b do not.
Green boxes: The Mr lanes look very similar between 2B and 2D, and also appear duplicated within the panels.
Pink arrows: Sharp background transition lines are visible, suggesting splicing of lanes.
” Similar issues in Fig 4D

Another name you will keep encountering is Pavel Kopel, former staff scientist in Brno who recently earned himself a professorship and his own lab at the Palacky University in Olomouc. Yes, the university of the nanofabricator Radek Zbořil!

We are entering the Mendelian Paradox.

Gregor Mendel, the monk from Brno who discovered the rules of genetic inheritance, was also accused of fraud once modern scientists figured out that his Mendelian distribution data was just too good to be true, e.g. to account for the statistically expected noise and the reality of meiotic recombination between alleles. Various explanations to address the Mendelian Paradox were put forward, like unconscious bias, sheer luck, crooked sneaky assistants or indeed intentional yet forgivable data forgery, because “some giants of scientific discovery” did it, too. As Nissani 1994 explained:

“Apart from the statistical and circumstantial evidence above, everything we know about Mendel suggests that he was unlikely to engage in either deliberate fraud or large-scale, unconscious, adjustment of his observations. […]

In most cases, adjustment of data is rightly frowned upon, for it betrays an important rule of scientific conduct and, at the same time, it retards the growth of knowledge. Fraud undertaken for selfish, ideological, and other extrascientific reasons, is indeed reprehensible.
Sometimes, however, the demand to faithfully report one’s data must be sacrificed for the higher value of advancing knowledge.”

I love this argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), it’s so stretchable, to the point where the only real fraudsters are the critics and whistleblowers who besmirch the truth-seeking elite scientists. Let’s use it to absolve the new Mendel University rector, no?

Here for example, so what if the gel bands and the nanoparticles were copy-pasted in Photoshop:

Simona Dostalova , Tereza Cerna , David Hynek , Zuzana Koudelkova , Tomas Vaculovic , Pavel Kopel , Jan Hrabeta , Zbynek Heger , Marketa Vaculovicova , Tomas Eckschlager , Marie Stiborova , Vojtech Adam Site-Directed Conjugation of Antibodies to Apoferritin Nanocarrier for Targeted Drug Delivery to Prostate Cancer Cells ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces (2016) doi: 10.1021/acsami.6b04286 

Bik: “Cyan and pink boxes: Some of the nanoparticles appear to be visible multiple times.
The yellow arrows were part of the original figure.

Bik on Fig 2 (left):

  • Green boxes: In Figure 2B, the APODOX and APODOX-Nano panels look remarkably similar
  • Orange boxes: In Figure 2C, the APODOX and APODOX-Nano panels look remarkably similar
  • Red and dark red boxes: In In Figure 2F, parts of the APODOX and APODOX-Hau lanes look remarkably similar

The good news is that this ACS journal is where science fraud is cherished and protected. Expect a correction at best, where fake figures will be replaced and conclusions will be declared unaffected.

Kizek, Vojtech, Heger, Kopel, it’s a male dynasty of factory-made trash science, populating and dominating Czech academia with its “creative” offspring, devouring among themselves the scare jobs and research funds, while honest Czech scientists get politely told to seek “alternative careers”. Meet another high-flyer:

Vedran Milosavljevic, Yazan Haddad , Miguel Angel Merlos Rodrigo , Amitava Moulick, Hana Polanska , David Hynek , Zbynek Heger, Pavel Kopel , Vojtech Adam The Zinc-Schiff Base-Novicidin Complex as a Potential Prostate Cancer Therapy PLoS ONE (2016) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163983

Bik: “This paper has a September 2018 Correction found here: [link] The Correction addresses errors in the caption of Figure 4. The figure itself was not corrected.”

The Mendel University assistant professor and CEITEC researcher Vedran Milosavljevic explained on Pubpeer:

we found that we uploaded the wrong image. Indeed the figure a and d are the same, only figure d represents the merge between ambient light and fluorescence.

He then uploaded a replacement picture and offered to send it to Bik by email. What Milosavljevic did not offer though, was to issue another Correction at PLOS One. And he also decided not to comment on this paper of his, again with his mentor Adam:

Jindrich Kynicky , Vedran Milosavljevic , Pavlina Jelinkova, Yazan Haddad, Miguel Angel Merlos Rodrigo, Hana Buchtelova , Zuzana Bytesnikova, Martin Brtnicky , Lukas Richtera , Pavel Kopel , Vojtech Adam Europium and terbium Schiff base peptide complexes as potential antimicrobial agents against Salmonella typhimurium and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Chemical Papers (2018) doi: 10.1007/s11696-018-0400-3 

Bik: “Cyan and pink boxes show that the top half of the image looks remarkably like the bottom half, albeit at a 180 degrees rotation. I look forward to hear the authors’ explanation on what happened here.

Silence instead. Not even a replacement picture you could offer to email, Dr Milosavljevic? Hello? Maybe here, Vedran? Ask your teacher, maybe Prof Adam has a spare picture somewhere.

Vedran Milosavljevic , Pavlina Jelinkova , Ana Maria Jimenez Jimenez , Amitava Moulick , Yazan Haddad , Hana Buchtelova , Sona Krizkova , Zbynek Heger, Lukas Kalina , Lukas Richtera , Pavel Kopel , Vojtech Adam Alternative Synthesis Route of Biocompatible Polyvinylpyrrolidone Nanoparticles and Their Effect on Pathogenic Microorganisms Molecular Pharmaceutics (2017) doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00807

Bik: “Blue boxes: The 6 ug/ml, 2h panel looks remarkably similar to the 6 ug/ml, 24h panel. From reading the Methods it appears that cells are prepped and lysed before for the microscopy, instead of monitoring continuously. Could the authors please comment if these images are expected to look so similar? It is not a simple duplicated photo; the intensities are a bit different.

I’m sorry, Professor Adam and especially Professor Milosavljevic, who is already last author on this groundbreaking biomaterials research, but might you two wise scholars have a replacement picture for us there?

Milica Gagic , Silvia Kociova , Kristyna Smerkova , Hana Michalkova , Milena Setka , Pavel Svec , Jan Pribyl , Jiri Masilko , Radka Balkova , Zbynek Heger, Lukas Richtera, Vojtech Adam, Vedran Milosavljevic One-pot synthesis of natural amine-modified biocompatible carbon quantum dots with antibacterial activity Journal of Colloid and Interface Science (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.jcis.2020.06.125 

Bik: “Red boxes: Panel A (cadaverine –CCQDs) appears to overlap with panel C ((C) putrescine – PCQDs). Could the authors please check? Because the zoom factor is different
Then another PubPeer user, Iris Mild, chimed in: “In addition, (D) includes a significant portion of (A). Specifically, if we rotate (A) by 90 degrees clockwise, shrink it and then stretch horizontally, we obtain an exact copy of a part of (D), including the same noise pattern.

Silence from the authors. Ok, let’s look at yet another fake gel then, courtesy of Kizek and Adam.

Dagmar Chudobova, Simona Dostalova, Iva Blazkova, Petr Michalek, Branislav Ruttkay-Nedecky, Matej Sklenar, Lukas Nejdl, Jiri Kudr, Jaromir Gumulec, Katerina Tmejova, Marie Konecna, Marketa Vaculovicova, David Hynek, Michal Masarik, Jindrich Kynicky, Rene Kizek, Vojtech Adam Effect of ampicillin, streptomycin, penicillin and tetracycline on metal resistant and non-resistant Staphylococcus aureus International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2014) doi: 10.3390/ijerph110303233

Bik: “Blue boxes: The AMP lane in the top row has a different, more red, background than those of the surrounding lanes. It is surrounded by sharp vertical transition lines. It looks very similar to the RCd lane in the bottom panel.

More Mendelian Paradoxes:

Hana Buchtelova , Vladislav Strmiska , Simona Dostalova, Petr Michalek, Sona Krizkova , Pavel Kopel, David Hynek, Lukas Richtera, Vojtech Adam, Zbynek Heger pH-Responsive Hybrid Organic-Inorganic Ruthenium Nanoparticles for Controlled Release of Doxorubicin Particle & Particle Systems Characterization (2017) doi: 10.1002/ppsc.201700289

Bik: “Red boxes: The RuNPs panels appears to overlap with the RuPDox panel, albeit shown at different magnification.”

Bik on Fig 5E: “Boxes of the same color highlight photos of vials that look quite similar. Of course, different vials might look alike, but could the authors perhaps provide higher resolution images to take away any possible concern?

Surely all this unfortunate image reuse doesn’t really matter when the real goal is to find a cure for cancer? And if you don’t like these papers, well, Professor Adam has literally many hundreds others.

Hana Michalkova , Zuzana Skubalova , Hanna Sopha , Vladislav Strmiska , Barbora Tesarova , Simona Dostalova, Pavel Svec , Ludek Hromadko , Martin Motola , Jan M. Macak , Vojtech Adam, Zbynek Heger Complex cytotoxicity mechanism of bundles formed from self-organised 1-D anodic TiO2 nanotubes layers Journal of Hazardous Materials (2020) doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122054 

Bik: “Red boxes: The TNTs-1 and TNTs-2 panels appear to show an overlap, with a change in aspect ratio
Bik: “Orange, green, pink boxes: Some wells in the TNTs-1 experiments look similar to those in the TNTs-2 experiment, albeit perhaps photographed from slightly different angles

There are of course more papers of Adam’s on PubPeer. This is the oldest thread, commented upon two years ago in 2019 not by Bik, but by Thallarcha Lechrioleuca, who told me to have found that fraud by doing their Fake Spectra Googling exercise.

Vinh Dinh Nguyen, Jindrich Kynicky, Pavlina Ambrozova , Vojtech Adam Microwave-Assisted Synthesis of Goethite Nanoparticles Used for Removal of Cr(VI) from Aqueous Solution Materials (2017) doi: 10.3390/ma10070783

Figure 1. Blue XRD pattern shows unusual repetition of background.”

I guess they had to remove some undesired peaks…. Luckily it’s an MDPI journal, and the other papers are mostly safe with Elsevier and ACS. No retractions to be expected there!

Original photos: Mendel University, CEITEC, ResearchGate

Adam seemed truly surprised and overwhelmed about what happened on PubPeer. He even asked me:

Please, can you tell me more about the web page and mechanism behind? Is there any “scheme” of scanning published papers?

It’s like those papers were not supposed to be actually studied. Just numbers, score points, impact factors, hundreds of meaningless studies, to add to your h-index and your next grant/job application.

And it worked great. ERC grant, two professorships, several labs. Starting February 2022, the vice-rector for Research Adam will take over the position of the Mendel University’s rector, having just won the elections. His acting predecessor, Danuše Nerudová, wrote to me:

Based on your information, I have asked prof. Adam to clarify and explain all the individual cases, giving him three weeks for this. As soon as I will receive his answer, I am going to shift the material to ethical comitee of Mendel University. I will also speak with director of CEITEC to initiate the same procedure on the University of Technology.”

Heads might roll, at least of those not yet tenured. Or maybe not even that. Nerudova also added:

I have mandate till the end of January. We are creating special ethic comitee only for this case as a consortium of two universities and one research institution. With the specialists on chemistry. You can be sure I will deeply investigate this matter. 

The Mendel University, the Brno University of Technology and CEITEC all issued press releases on 22 October 2021. The CEITEC press release declared:

“….we observe with concern that certain inconsistencies have been highlighted in some publications of Vojtech Adam (Research Group Leader at CEITEC BUT) and there are questions over their scientific integrity. Vojtech Adam was asked to explain the identified ambiguities in the published data within the standard internal procedures of the Brno University of Technology and Mendel University in Brno, to which his research group is affiliated. The director of the CEITEC consortium, Pavel Tomancak, will work with these partner institutions and will use his international experience and contacts to objectively assess the gravity of the presented facts.”

They don’t have much time. The main investigation will remain with the Mendel University, because this is where the criticised research was done – Adam’s other two affiliations happened only afterwards, in 2020. Once Adam is installed as the Mendel University rector, and the university’s power structures are remodelled according to new loyalties, we might have to prepare ourselves for something similar to the Giorgio Zauli and University of Ferrara affair.

Update 27.10.2021

Oh dear, who made those gels in Figure 5…

Michal Masarik, Jaromir Gumulec , Marketa Sztalmachova , Marian Hlavna , Petr Babula , Sona Krizkova , Marketa Ryvolova , Michal Jurajda , Jiri Sochor , Vojtech Adam , Rene Kizek Isolation of metallothionein from cells derived from aggressive form of high-grade prostate carcinoma using paramagnetic antibody-modified microbeads off-line coupled with electrochemical and electrophoretic analysis Electrophoresis (2011) doi: 10.1002/elps.201100301

Gerris Caucasicus: “In 5C, several bands appear to be very similar to each other despite different intensity. Boxes of corresponding colors mark similar bands“.
Also the ladder in 5B and the second gel in 5C appear remarkably similar. Marked by red boxes.

Update 25.01.2022

Mendel University Brno in Czechia found its own newly appointed rector Vojtech Adam guilty of research misconduct, a report has been published online. Out of 12 investigated papers, 6 were recommended for retraction and 3 were declared as considered for retraction.

“The Committee met for the first time on November 15, 2021 and decided that the investigation will focus on the 12 publications flagged on PubPeer where Vojtěch Adam is the corresponding author (see References). […] On December 6, 2021 the requested materials were delivered to the Committee. In addition, Prof. Adam and his team submitted errata for 8 out of the 12 papers, three of which were already published by the respective journals (Kynicky et al., 2018; Merlos Rodrigo et al., 2019; Milosavljevic et al., 2016). The Committee has received the information that two papers will be retracted, however the status of the decision at the journals is currently unknown.”

There is no direct reference to my article and my misconduct notification to the university’s current rector and member of investigative committee, Danuše Nerudová.

“The Committee came to the consensus that this argument together with the errata is not sufficient to convincingly correct the scientific record. Scientific work relies crucially on extreme rigour and requires maximum integrity in the presented data. Whenever discrepancies are so obvious that they can be discovered simply by visual inspection, a doubt is cast on the entire piece of work. It is irrelevant whether the manipulations are intentional or result from negligence. The only meaningful defence in such a case is to identify the source of the discrepancy by inspecting the raw data and thus dispel any notion of misconduct.

Apparently, Prof. Adam did not grasp the Committee’s definition of raw data. The microscopy images he provided were in most cases low-resolution jpeg files that were used to assemble the composite figures. The Committee expected to receive the raw data files from microscopy software. Without exception, single images were presented as if no other data supporting the conclusions of the work exist. If mistakes were made, one would expect that wrong images were picked from a large pool of data – perhaps due to ambiguous naming of the files. Since almost none of the datasets were accompanied by laboratory notebook records, no such scenarios could be envisaged. This approach to raw data management is not in line with a good scientific practice.

For images of molecular biology gels, the Committee was expecting to receive raw scans of complete experiments with individual lanes labelled and, when appropriate, sufficiently replicated. Instead, Prof. Adam’s laboratory apparently assembled gels in PowerPoint as collages of objects cropped from the raw data. This, however, is not an acceptable scientific practice. Moreover, occasionally the band objects were arbitrarily placed regardless of molecular weight, duplicated and mirrored (Merlos Rodrigo et al., 2018 in Oncotarget; Merlos Rodrigo et al., 2018 in Prostate). This is a clear case of scientific misconduct.”

The report contains this illustration:

It continues:

“Preparing Figures for scientific publications is a meticulous effort that demands attention to every detail. For many of the figures that the Committee studied, this level of care was not apparent. Some of the duplications were glaringly obvious and should have been detected by the authors. This oversight might be attributed to the unprecedented volume of publications that the group of Prof. Adam produced over the years. Adaptive behaviour towards high volume publishing is detrimental to the quality of science.

It was particularly concerning that in at least two cases, discrepancies appeared also in the data provided to the Committee as corrections. Moreover, the explanation of the discrepancies presented to the Committee differed from the explanations given to the media (Figure 1E in Merlos Rodrigo et al., (2018) commented on in DenikN newspaper1). The Committee leaves the interpretation of these observations to others.

Finally, the Committee was struck by the poor level of peer review and editorial handling of most of the papers in questions. Given the superficial nature of the editorial processes, the Committee recommends to disregard the errata that these publishers so easily accepted.

Scientists should strive to publish their work in journals with higher standards.

Conclusion Taken together, the Committee concludes that the published work carried out in the laboratory of Prof. Adam and evaluated by the Committee did not adhere to the principles of good scientific practice. The issues ranged from gross negligence in quality control to clear signs of data manipulation. The Committee recommends retracting at least 6 papers to correct the scientific record.”

Actually, 3 more retractions were advised, making it 9 recommended retractions in total. Also the report says nothing in this regard, Adam is unlikely to take his rectorship position now.

Update 26.01.2022

Email from Pavel Tomančák, head of CEITEC Consortium, MPI-CBG group leader and one of Adam’s investigators:

“As of 1st of February 2022, Professor Adam resigned on his position of Research Group Leader at CEITEC BUT. Management of the CEITEC BUT has decided that the style of Vojtech Adam´s research group scientific practise will be examined by a control audit. Additionally, I am planning to take steps to increase awareness regarding good scientific practice among CEITEC consortium researchers at all career levels. “

ERC spokesperson told me:

The Integrity Standing Committee of the ERC’s executive agency is examining Prof Vojtech Adam’s case.

In my view, since Adam’s ERC-funded research was located at CEITEC/VUT, his running grant is not tenable anymore, for formal reasons alone.

And for Adam’s mentor and corresponding author of many fraudulent papers, the Masaryk University professor Rene Kizek, it’s literally game over. Here is what Michaela Pokorná, Rector’s spokesperson, wrote to me:

Shortly after the incorporation of the Faculty of Pharmacy into the structure of Masaryk University in July 2020 (previously, the Faculty was part of the University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno), the current management of MU instructed the management of the Faculty of Pharmacy, where Prof. Kizek worked at the time, to immediately implement the academic ethical standards of Masaryk University. The new management of the Faculty of Pharmacy MU then terminated its cooperation with Prof. Kizek as of 31 December 2021. Therefore, Prof. Kizek is no longer employed by Masaryk University.

I am now an even bigger fan of Czechia than I was before.

Update 3.02.2022

Adam resigned a srector, as Mendel University announced on 31 January 2022, there will be new elections soon. Here is Adam’s statement, quote:

Errors occurred and under these I was signed as a correspondent author. My goal was from the beginning to search for and to correct mistakes, even if it was a simple and in fact a legitimate way to point at the members of my team who were in charge of the given work segments. Still, I didn’t do it and I will never do it. I believe in a team, which is why I accept my share of responsibility for mistakes.”

The current office holder Danuše Nerudova also issued a statement:


“I fully respect the independence of the Academic Senate, and therefore its decision not to deduce from the report of the Ethics Committee the next steps. However, I consider the conclusions of the commission to be serious and incompatible with the function of the rector. That’s why after the meeting of the academic senate on January 26, I asked prof. Adam to consider resignation.”


Contact Form

One-Time
Monthly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Choose an amount

€5.00
€10.00
€20.00
€5.00
€10.00
€20.00

Or enter a custom amount


Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthly

49 comments on “Moravian Rhapsody

  1. “Vojtech Adam [looks good in a suit], a star of Czechia’s cancer and nanotechnology research, just won the election to the rectorship of the Mendel University in Brno.”

    Looking good in a suit is one of the main qualifications for that kind of job.

    Like

    • hopefully the Mendel uni and CEITEC will take adequate measure and get rid of this kind of people without moral rules. I remember listening presentation of VA 10 years back and already that time we were all laughing after the seminar when the speaker left, what king of ‘science” and presentation style it was. AV and his former mentor were simply masters of sciomerty so they both raised like a star’s, w/o real scientific success behind

      Like

  2. Just a minor note regarding Adam Vojtěch, you correctly state he is a former Health Minister. However, he is also a current Health Minister. And you might be interested in why that is the case (well, that is quite simple – not enought people for that post) or more interestingly, why Health Ministers between Adam Vojtěch I and Adam Vojtěch II, Roman Prymula, Jan Blatný and Petr Arenberger, were replaced. 😉

    Like

  3. Here in the Czech Republic we build new Institutes for fraudsters, such as CATRIN for Zboril. Also, when their affair peaks, they become welcome to other universities such as Ostrava. For Adam, a new university should be founded, so that he could be a Double Rector.

    Like

  4. detective Michael Scarn

    It had to be done: https://imgur.com/IsJD4fQ

    Like

  5. Ludmila Krejcova , Dana Dospivova , Marketa Ryvolova , Pavel Kopel , David Hynek , Sona Krizkova , Jaromir Hubalek , Vojtech Adam , Rene Kizek
    Paramagnetic particles coupled with an automated flow injection analysis as a tool for influenza viral protein detection Electrophoresis (2012) doi: 10.1002/elps.201200304
    Gerris Caucasicus: “Figure 2: In part B, the pictures in the second column appear to be the same. The red and orange arrows and red boxes highlight remarkable similarities.

    Like

  6. gregortheking

    Vojtěch Adam, in a statement to newspaper Deník Rovnost, refused any wrongful data adjustment. On behalf of himself and his colleagues: “I am very sorry for the situation that has arisen. I can honestly state that there was no deliberate falsification of data. Doubts were raised about the procedural steps of the research, not about the conclusions. In any case, I am extremely sorry and at this point we are already actively correcting parts of it, including the images. I dare say we are close to addressing all the corrections that are necessary,” he responded.
    Source: https://brnensky.denik.cz/zpravy_region/falsovani-dat-u-praci-novy-rektor-mendelovy-univerzity-ma-3-tydny-na-objasneni.html

    Like

    • Oh good, I was worried all that photoshop fraud may have affected some of the conclusions. Phew.

      Like

      • Lee Rudolph

        How could problems with the illustrations affect the conclusions? In the Science 2.0, conclusions come first, then illustrations are prepared to support them!

        Liked by 1 person

  7. gregortheking

    Future rector Adam submitted explanations for the articles, the case will be reviewed by the commission

    The rector of Mendel University in Brno, Danuše Nerudová, has received an explanation from her elected successor Vojtěch Adam on the case of alleged ambiguities in image data in scientific publications. She will forward the report to the Ethics Committee.

    The Academic Senate will then receive the commission’s conclusions. Adam rules out deliberate misrepresentation. He told ČTK that he and his colleagues are gradually correcting the alleged “procedural errors”.

    The ethics committee includes both Czech and foreign experts from renowned research institutes with a focus on the scientific field of the work in question. “The commission was specifically set up to investigate what happened. It will hold its first meeting in the coming days,” Nerudova said.

    “I have submitted detailed documents that confirm my earlier position that there was no deliberate misrepresentation of data, but procedural errors that have no impact on the main conclusions of all our published papers,” Adam told the Czech News Agency. In most cases, the authors’ teams found the original data, on the basis of which the disputed figures are gradually being corrected in the published papers.

    “I am in contact with the editors of the scientific journals where the articles were published. Within three weeks, two findings have been clarified without the need for further corrections, and in two cases the editors have even issued a decision to accept the corrections, which I consider a success,” Adam described.

    In October, the daily N wrote that the future rector faced suspicions of deliberately editing image data in articles published by the CEITEC research group of the Technical University, which he heads. He was given three weeks by the outgoing rector Neruda to explain the situation and provide evidence that he or his colleagues did not cheat.

    Other researchers from the Czech Republic and abroad, such as on the PubPeer website, have pointed out the irregularities in the articles online and on social media. Some of the images from the experiments bear a striking resemblance to one another, only rotated or slightly altered, Deník N wrote.

    “I would like to add that websites like PubPeer now contain hundreds of thousands of articles, including those by world-renowned scientists, and that they are primarily intended to find and correct errors, which is something we are working hard on,” Adam stressed.

    Chemist Adam is expected to head the university next February. His research is aimed at developing drugs for the nation’s diseases. At 39, he is one of the world’s most respected scientists, having been awarded a prestigious European Research Council grant. He had strong support in the Academic Senate in the election of the Rector. (CTK)

    https://denikn.cz/minuta/745799/?fbclid=IwAR3Xju1woRNrDK9qg4_U4IYnmMHDopS-QkPxUB22vwaWO-zBt1db2HZqmEc

    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

    Like

  8. One week before the start of the Adam’s term. Total silence. No information from the Ethics Committee, no mention in the press, nothing…

    Like

      • “The Committee came to the consensus that this argument together with the errata is not sufficient to convincingly correct the scientific record. Scientific work relies crucially on extreme rigour and requires maximum integrity in the presented data. Whenever discrepancies are so obvious that they can be discovered simply by visual inspection, a doubt is cast on the entire piece of work. It is irrelevant whether the manipulations are intentional or result from negligence. The only meaningful defence in such a case is to identify the source of the discrepancy by inspecting the raw data and thus dispel any notion of misconduct.

        Apparently, Prof. Adam did not grasp the Committee’s definition of raw data. The microscopy images he provided were in most cases low-resolution jpeg files that were used to assemble the composite figures. The Committee expected to receive the raw data files from microscopy software. Without exception, single images were presented as if no other data supporting the conclusions of the work exist. If mistakes were made, one would expect that wrong images were picked from a large pool of data – perhaps due to ambiguous naming of the files. Since almost none of the datasets were accompanied by laboratory notebook records, no such scenarios could be envisaged. This approach to raw data management is not in line with a good scientific practice.

        For images of molecular biology gels, the Committee was expecting to receive raw scans of complete experiments with individual lanes labelled and, when appropriate, sufficiently replicated. Instead, Prof. Adam’s laboratory apparently assembled gels in PowerPoint as collages of objects cropped from the raw data. This, however, is not an acceptable scientific practice. Moreover, occasionally the band objects were arbitrarily placed regardless of molecular weight, duplicated and mirrored (Merlos Rodrigo et al., 2018 in Oncotarget; Merlos Rodrigo et al., 2018 in Prostate). This is a clear case of scientific misconduct.

        Preparing Figures for scientific publications is a meticulous effort that demands attention to every detail. For many of the figures that the Committee studied, this level of care was not apparent. Some of the duplications were glaringly obvious and should have been detected by the authors. This oversight might be attributed to the unprecedented volume of publications that the group of Prof. Adam produced over the years. Adaptive behaviour towards high volume publishing is detrimental to the quality of science.

        It was particularly concerning that in at least two cases, discrepancies appeared also in the data provided to the Committee as corrections. Moreover, the explanation of the discrepancies presented to the Committee differed from the explanations given to the media (Figure 1E in Merlos Rodrigo et al., (2018) commented on in DenikN newspaper1). The Committee leaves the interpretation of these observations to others.

        Finally, the Committee was struck by the poor level of peer review and editorial handling of most of the papers in questions. Given the superficial nature of the editorial processes, the Committee recommends to disregard the errata that these publishers so easily accepted.

        Scientists should strive to publish their work in journals with higher standards.

        Conclusion Taken together, the Committee concludes that the published work carried out in the laboratory of Prof. Adam and evaluated by the Committee did not adhere to the principles of good scientific practice. The issues ranged from gross negligence in quality control to clear signs of data manipulation. The Committee recommends retracting at least 6 papers to correct the scientific record.”

        Actually, 3 more retractions were advised, making it 9 recommended retractions in total.

        Click to access vojtech-adam-investigation-report.pdf

        Like

      • DenikN wrote yesterday:
        “Vojtěch Adam is to take office as the first rector on February 1, and tomorrow he will be appointed by President Miloš Zeman together with other new rectors. However, Vojtěch Adam will not personally attend the event due to isolation.”
        It’s today. Hands up who trusts Czechia’s most rotten politician Milos Zeman.

        Like

      • Email from Pavel Tomančák, head of CEITEC Consortium and one of Adam’s investigators:
        “As of 1st of February 2022, Professor Adam resigned on his position of Research Group Leader at CEITEC BUT. Management of the CEITEC BUT has decided that the style of Vojtech Adam´s research group scientific practise will be examined by a control audit. Additionally, I am planning to take steps to increase awareness regarding good scientific practice among CEITEC consortium researchers at all career levels. “

        ERC announced to give me an update soon. IMO, since Adam’s ERC-funded research was located at CEITEC/VUT, his grant is not tenable anymore, for formal reasons alone.

        Like

  9. What a disgrace!
    I would like to highlight several key points in this matter:
    1. Scale and repetitiveness. Both illustrate that this can’t be just a slippage of attention when a busy corresponding author depends on others who put together most of the manuscript. This documents a policy: If you don’t have a result, make it up and fake the data to support your claims.
    2. A rotten lab. I can’t believe that most of the people – perhaps except the junior team members – must have known that data falsification exists and is done frequently. Obviously, no whistleblower with at least a basic understanding what is right and what is one of the worst things a scientist can do showed up.
    3. Sick academic environment at the Mendel University. What kind of people vote university president a person who’s fraudulent behavior is so difficult to deny? As much as I looked I was no able to find any outcry from the Mendel University faculty or students. That can mean two things – either are happy with the vote or don’t care. Silence from the newly appointed Minister of Education speaks for itself.
    4. Thumbs up for the CEITEC leadership. One can only hope the investigation report marks the beginning of Adam’s end as an independent researcher at this institute.

    Like

    • ad 3: The Academic Senate of Mendel University is chaired by Jiri Skladanka, co-author of 8 papers with Vojtech Adam and a head of one of the institutes at Mendel University. Chancellor of ASMU is Zuzana Lackova who published seven papers with Adam. Petr Salas ASMU member, also published two papers with Adam. In total, the senate has only 32 members and records are not public so we don’t know if anyone dared to question integrity of the nominee. Clearly, not many as Adam scored 22 votes.

      Like

      • Just one note, he was elected before most of this was public (yes, the papers were already flagged on PubPeer, but not everyone pays attention to that). Obviously his “productivity” should be suspicious enough, but at the point of election, he was regarded as their star scientist. The calls for investigations appeared on Twitter after his election was made public.

        Like

      • @PetrV
        Good point. I have been wondering if this was discussed before the vote at the Senate meeting, but records are not publicly available. On the other hand, the ASMU had plenty of time for issuing a statement if the general opinion is any different from the one voiced by Skladanka.

        Like

  10. Pingback: New Mendel University rector found guilty of misconduct – Science Integrity Digest

  11. Chairman Skladanka said for the press, that “according to his personal opinion, it was not intentional misconduct. Skladanka emphasized, that at Mendel University, the principes of good scientific practice are followed. It Is important to thoroughly examine the data before publishing. The academic senate obtained the report on Sunday, discussed on Monday and called the authors for redress.” https://www.idnes.cz/brno/zpravy/mendelova-univerzita-brno-budouci-rektor-vyzkum-chyba-omluva.A220125_133208_brno-zpravy_mls
    So, that’s all? A call for redress?

    Like

  12. At least one public appeal (from a NGO) to the rector-elect to step down before he takes the office:

    http://www.vedazije.cz/clanek/clanek-fvz/otevrena-vyzva-akademicke-obci-mendelovy-univerzity-v-brne

    There is still one last option – the president of the Czech republic can refuse to hand him the rector diploma (this is actually not impossible as the president has been sensitive to various academic misconducts).

    Like

    • Who? Milos Zeman? The Putin stooge who tried to disregard elections and install a corrupt oligarch as PM again?

      Like

      • Now we know he had no problems with appointing Adam but had to make a nasty commen towards Jan Farský regarding his Fulbright Scholarship and refused to shake hand with one of the newly appointed rectors who wrote a script for a satirical play about Zeman’s spokeperson Ovčáček. The priorities are clear.

        Like

  13. gregortheking

    Rector of Mendel University Nerudová recommended her successor to resign

    The outgoing rector of Mendel University in Brno, Danuše Nerudová, has recommended her successor Vojtěch Adam to resign. An expert commission, which she initiated, found several scientific errors in scientific articles and recommended their withdrawal from journals. The Conference of Rectors is now asking Professor Adam to explain the doubts about his scientific articles. According to the rectors, the case casts a bad light on Czech science.

    Nerudova is sorry that the good name of the university, to which she has devoted four years of hard work, is now at stake, she wrote in a statement. Vojtěch was due to attend the appointment of new rectors at Prague Castle on Wednesday but was not present due to illness. He was due to take up the post on 1 February.

    Adam said he does not intend to resign. He does not consider the alleged misconduct to be so fundamental as to require a decisive and irreversible step.

    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

    Like

    • Meanwhile, for Adam’s mentor and corresponding author of many fraudulent papers, the Masaryk University professor Rene Kizek, it’s literally game over. Here is what Michaela Pokorná, Rector’s spokesperson, wrote to me:

      “Shortly after the incorporation of the Faculty of Pharmacy into the structure of Masaryk University in July 2020 (previously, the Faculty was part of the University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences Brno), the current management of MU instructed the management of the Faculty of Pharmacy, where Prof. Kizek worked at the time, to immediately implement the academic ethical standards of Masaryk University. The new management of the Faculty of Pharmacy MU then terminated its cooperation with Prof. Kizek as of 31 December 2021. Therefore, Prof. Kizek is no longer employed by Masaryk University.
      Thank you for your interest and your care for the quality of science and ethical integrity.”

      Like

  14. Curious Ladybug

    VRI, Bioceva, Charles University, 2nd Medical Faculty, Wroclaw Medical University, EnviEcoNanolife sro, Prevention Medicals, sro

    Like

    • I wrote to Kizek’s other two academic affiliations, Charles University 2nd Medical Faculty in Prague and Wroclaw Medical University (PL). As for the other affiliations, those are businesses, some of those may have been even founded by Kizek himself?

      Like

      • Curious Ladybug

        Veterinary Research Institutem (VRI)

        Like

      • VRI is for the Veterinary Research Institute in Brno, directed by Martin Faldyna, faldyna@vri.cz

        Like

      • ” Dear Mr. Schneider,

        thank you for your question. I can confirm that Dr. Kizek is no longer employed at our institute. The fact that his name was still on the list of our employees was just because our websites had not been updated since the end of last year.

        He had been employed at the institute on a very limited basis within one project during 2019-2021.

        With kind regards,

        Martin Faldyna”

        Like

  15. Curious Ladybug

    Biocev

    Like

  16. Veterinary Research Institute and BIOCEV are public research institutes.

    Like

  17. Curious Ladybug

    Yes, both is Charles University, but Biocev is 1st Medical Faculty and it is a research intitute.

    Like

  18. I feel a sense of satisfaction reading this. I had the displeasure to spend several days in prof. Kizek´s lab about a decade ago and the things that have seen… It had nothing to do with science. I could not understand why would anybody voluntarily participate in this. Apparently many people did and now that guy is a rector.

    Like

  19. gregortheking

    Vojtěch Adam was signed as a corresponding author on twelve problematic scientific papers that Deník reported on in October. He is normally in charge of proofreading before printing, communication with the editorial office and among the authors’ team. Specifically, Adam’s role was to direct the research topics, experimental design, and participate in the writing of the publication itself.

    The international committee, led by CEITEC Consortium Director Pavel Tomančák, found that in nine of the twelve papers examined, the authors did not adhere to the ethics of scientific work. “The papers show negligence in quality control and obvious manipulation of data. For six of the papers, we recommend withdrawal from scientific journals, while for the other three, this is a matter for consideration,” the final report said.

    The new rector apologised for the situation. “I respect the results of the commission. I apologize for the errors found in the scientific papers I led, but I consider it essential that none of the articles had significant impacts on the main conclusions of our papers,” Adam said.

    The results of the investigation were presented to the Academic Senate by the current rector, Danuše Nerudová, who called on Adam to resign. “I am sorry that the reputation of the university is at stake at this moment. I have advised the professor to consider resigning responsibly, but as the outgoing rector I respect the choice of the Academic Senate and I do not consider it right for me to actively interfere in the case,” Nerudová said.

    The accused rector, Adam, has provided supporting documents for his work. A commission will deal with them
    However, according to the newly appointed rector, the misconduct found is not serious enough to lead to such an irreversible step as resignation. “I very much appreciate the work of my predecessor, which I would like to build on, but on the other hand, I was duly and legitimately elected to the head of Mendel University and I would not like to disappoint the support of the people behind me. I believe that when emotions cool down, we will be able to resolve everything together and get down to the hard work,” Adam outlined.

    He also outlined how to avoid similar missteps in the future. “Beyond the actual corrections, I have introduced a new transparent system of data collection and control based on the results, which I plan for the entire university,” the rector added.

    Source: https://brnensky.denik.cz/zpravy_region/nerudova-vyzvala-noveho-rektora-k-rezignaci-ten-odmita-20220126.html

    Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

    Like

    • I am not sure he is legally entitled to the rectorship. All the academic senate has to do is to call a new election because new things has come to light etc. Will they do that?

      Like

  20. Hahahaha. ADam and Kizek were taking the piss here, pardon the pun.
    Vojtech Adam , Radka Mikelova , Jaromír Hubalek , Pavel Hanustiak , Miroslava Beklova , Petr Hodek , Ales Horna , Libuse Trnkova , Marie Stiborova , Ladislav Zeman , Rene Kizek Utilizing of Square Wave Voltammetry to Detect Flavonoids in the Presence of Human Urine Sensors (2007) doi: 10.3390/s7102402

    Elisabeth M Bik: “Brought to my attention by a reader, with some additional findings.
    Concern about Figure 1 (image made a bit lighter to bring out details).
    Pink and green boxes: Some bands in panel A (colon) appear to also be visible in panel B (liver). The pink band appears to be visible twice in panel B.
    Blue and burgundy boxes: The background appears to show repetitive pattern.

    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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: