A scientist of integrity and beyond reproach

In November 2021, I received a copy of an old investigative report by the University of California Berkeley in USA. It was from 2004, a certain German postdoc XY was found guilty of research misconduct, having fabricated data for at least three papers. I am not naming this German scientist XY here, but at the end, everyone who needs to know knows his name and the full story.

When XY’s freshly established career in USA as tenure track professor at New York University with a R01 grant abruptly ended, he escaped home and became full professor at three prestigious German universities in succession, and even an academy member. The Germans knew of the fraud findings in Berkeley, but they and XY declared them invalid, because of some secret “Letter of Exoneration”, or rather because the men in power felt that those Americans had no right to judge a German man from a good family. Since his return to Germany, XY became a Highly Cited Researcher and had been funded by ERC and the national funders DFG and Einstein Foundation who, unlike XY’s academic employers, had no clue of the Berkeley findings.

It is less a story of a deeply dishonest German opportunist, but a story of the arrogance and corruption of German universities and academies which conspired to defraud the public research.

This is the front page of the Berkeley report from September 2004. I redacted XY’s name. The full report is available to me, and actually to everyone involved.

At the time of this investigation, XY was Irene Diamond Assistant Professor at the Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine in New York. Between 1999 and 2003, he worked as postdoc in the lab of the immunologist David Raulet, professor in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. It seems, a colleague blew the whistle on XY:

There were three papers listed, all had Raulet as last author:

1. A 2000 Nature Immunology paper about the ligands for the murine NKG2D receptor
2. A 2002 Nature Immunology paper about stimulatory versus costimulatory activity of NKG2D (corrected in June 2004)
3. A 2002 Immunity paper about the NKG2D immunoreceptor in immune cell activation (corrected in June 2004)

The Berkeley report mentions that

“Corrigenda intended for publication have been sent by the authors to the respective journals, Nature Immunology ([…] 2004) and Immunity ([…] 2004), alerting the readership and the general scientific community that the earlier reports of clear-cut demonstration of NKGZD receptors on activated macrophages could not be duplicated (IC-31, corrigenda submitted to journals). The authors concluded that that, contrary to their published data, bone marrow and peritoneal macrophages activated in vitro do not express easily detectable levels of NKG2D receptors on the cell surface.”

Now, to the details.

Invisible mice

Allegation 1 was about a fabricated southern blot of transgenic ES cells which were never generated, and the knock-out mice which were allegedly made with those ES cells yet in reality never existed.

The findings regarding Allegation #1 were devastating:

“No evidence could be found that [XY] had conducted the type of large
scale screening of many hundreds of ES cell colonies typically obtained and required to identify targeted cells, and no evidence was found for positive screening of colonies by PCR. […] No data were produced to substantiate the successful screening a large number of ES cell colonies. […]
[XY] cannot account for the whereabouts of targeted ES cells and claims that they were left behind in Raulet’s lab […]. No members of the Raulet lab recall being given the ES cells and they cannot locate them. It would be highly unusual to have no trace of any vials of frozen targeted ES cells since typically only a fraction are used for creating the chimeric mouse and the remainder are kept frozen for other attempts.”

XY blamed a technician for sabotaging his work:

“[XY] raises the issue that must have mistakenly taken the wrong vials of
non-targeted cells since the cells she used were labeled with a designation consistent with unselected parental cells”

The Berkeley report found XY entirely fabricated the results with ES cells:

“CONCLUSION: The preponderance of evidence indicates that ES cells were never targeted with a neomycin gene for G418 drug resistance, and were never selected with the drug G4l8 for resistance. The preponderance of evidence also indicates that ES cells successfully disrupted in one allele of the Nkg2d gene were not developed by Dr. [XY]. Significant differences in testimony exist between [XY], who can provide no evidence to support his view of these events, and the testimony of other individuals who can provide contemporaneous notes to back their statements and recollections.”

And this is how XY committed the fabrication:

“There was a history of failed attempts on the part of [XY] to identify a positive clone of targeted ES cells and to perfect the technique of Southern blot DNA analysis. [XY] asked for one more opportunity and within a short time (2 weeks) produced the blot which is at issue. […] The blot in question looks unusually clean for a genomic Southern blot. Such blots would normally have had much higher background and some smearing of DNA fragments”

Here is the ultimate proof why the southern blot was utterly fake:

“In [XY]’s Southern blot the putative gene targeting was indicated by a band of 8.2 kb. However, the genomic DNA map for the Nkg2d gene which was used by [XY] at the time of the Southern blot analysis was incorrect. The targeted allele should have produced a band at 2.2 kb, rather than at 8.2 kb, which the incorrect map would have predicted. […] In later correspondence he attributes the 8.2 kb band to contamination with a genomic BAC plasmid which he had been using as a control for his PCR screens”

XY fabricated a gel band which couldn’t possibly exist:

“CONCLUSION: The preponderance of evidence indicates that the [XY] explanation for his results, plasmid contamination of his reagents, is extremely unlikely. The DNA band in question is present in only the clones identified as positives (five clones in the original figure, 3 in the Southern blot used for the NIH grant), but not in the sample which was designated “negative” and received the same treatment. The negative clone was presumably one that gave a negative signal in the PCR screening. A plasmid contaminant would have given the same signal in all samples, not just the positive samples for targeted disruption. Moreover, the intensity of the 8.2 kb band was equal in each of the three “positive clones.” Most unlikely, the amount of the putative plasmid signal was almost the same as that of the putative genomic signal for the undisrupted copy of the gene, which would be extraordinary by chance alone. Thus, contamination by a plasmid would require contamination capable of providing a signal equal to that of the non-disrupted allele and only in the “positive” clones but not the “negative” clones treated in an identical manner. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the genomic DNA Southern blot was falsified or fabricated to fit a genomic map for the Nkg2d which itself was later found to be incorrect.”

Yet XY accused his colleagues of “sabotage”, of having intentionally destroyed his materials and even transgenic mice:

Go with the flow

Now, to the Allegation #2, about fabricated flow cytometry to compensate for an antibody which didn’t work:

In the Correction published in Immunity in 2004, the authors admitted that they “observed either no staining or only weak staining of undemonstrated specificity” for their NKG2D antibodies, and also failed to obtain any “functional response from activated macrophages” using those antibodies.

To circumvent the problem, someone falsified the flow cytometry data. XY insisted it wasn’t him:

“Because of apparent manipulation of the data, [name blackened] brought forward allegation #2 with supporting materials making it clear that there was manipulation of the voltage settings for the flow cytometry data collected on January 11, 2002, and used in Figure 3 of the Immunity paper. For his part, [XY] argued in the original inquiry that he could not have collected the disputed data on January I I as he was clearly not in the laboratory or at the University on that date, and suggested that the issue of immunostaining of macrophages may have been the result of a contaminating antibody and/or alterations in
the primary electronic image files.”

XY claimed to have an alibi, but the investigators were soon able to prove that the alibi was as fabricated as XY’s research:

“CONCLUSION: The preponderance of evidence indicates that [XY] was
present in Berkeley on January 11, 2002, the day on which the flow cytometry data were analyzed. He was specifically identified in the lab on January 11^th by another postdoctoral associate. The email correspondence with the French scientific collaborators does not really establish whereabouts. The one factual item of a bank account expenditure in a ‘distant’ place at the time of the experiment could not be verified as a specific expenditure made by [XY]. Dr. [XY] offered the bank statement in evidence, but then refused to allow the Committee access to information regarding account expenditures.”

Then XY tried to mislead the investigators on who performed the actual FACS measurement on 11 January 2002. This was his sole evidence:

“[XY] asserted that the post-it note was attached to a page in his lab notebook in a space that established the time of its writing. The Investigative Committee was unable to locate the lab notebook and only have copies of pages supplied by
[XY].”

Nice try.

“CONCLUSION: The preponderance of evidence indicates that [XY]
performed the flow cytometry analysis on January ii, 2002, containing data that had been manipulated for individual experimental conditions. Testimony specifically establishes that [XY] was present in the lab on that day, his verified signature is in a chronological sequence consistent with an entry at the time indicated, and he was the only one with the skill and knowledge of the protocol to alter the experiment in the defined manner of data manipulation.”

A junior co-author was blamed by XY of having forged the published figure, but:

Now, the SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS:

The final part:

“RECOMMENDATIONS
The Investigative Committee notes that the infractions to normal scientific conduct surveyed in this report were blatant and repeated. Dr. [XY] should be dealt with in a manner consistent to the flagrant nature of the misconduct and data manipulation.
It is most important that the damage to scientific integrity and published misinformation be corrected as soon, and as completely, as possible. Statements retracting the falsified flow cytometry data and the incorrect immunostaining data have recently been published in the two journals in which the original material was published. This represents the minimum essential means to correct the falsified data and the inappropriate conclusions drawn therefrom.
The falsified data and misinformation regarding the Nkg2d gene knockout were never published, but they did constitute a major segment of an NIH grant awarded to Dr. David Raulet. Up to now there has only been casual discussion with the granting agency that there is no viable Nkg2d gene knockout mouse currently available. The lack of this experimental model, and the impact on the original proposal, should be explicitly conveyed to the National Cancer Institute by Dr. Raulet.”

A scientist of integrity and beyond reproach

I verified the authenticity of the Berkeley report.

On 10 December 2021, Robert Sanders, Manager for Science communications at UC Berkeley Media Relations, wrote to me:

“The document that you shared with us is the final report of a committee that investigated alleged research fraud by Dr. [XY] in 2002. The university stands by the integrity of our investigative processes in general and that 2004 report in particular. The committee, which included UC Berkeley and New York University scientists, unanimously concluded that Dr. [XY] falsified or misrepresented data, based on a preponderance of the evidence. The university subsequently alerted the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which did not dispute the committee’s findings, though the office declined to pursue the case further for other reasons. I am attaching the letter we received from ORI, in the event you have not yet seen it. The Berkeley researchers also alerted the journals that published some of the fraudulent data, and errata and corrigenda were subsequently published to correct the literature. Furthermore, the U.S. National Institutes of Health was alerted regarding the work, which had been used to support a grant application.”

I also forwarded the entire Berkeley report to the Charité professor XY. He swiftly deployed a lawyer, some Stephan Sch. of the Berlin law firm Redeker Sellner Dahs, threatening to sue me if I ever publish anything about this Californian case. The lawyer never denied the Berkeley report’s authenticity, but he denied its validity. He insisted that it was declared as invalid by both the UC Berkeley itself and by HHS-ORI.

Which is something UC Berkeley remains unaware of. Their press speaker Sanders insisted: “We stand by everything we have previously conveyed to you” and invited XY’s lawyer to contact the university’s counsel if his needs a formal statement.

When the Berkeley report was completed at the end of 2004, XY was the Irene Diamond Assistant Professor of Immunology at the Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine of New York University, with his own freshly awarded R01 grant for studying NKG2D receptor and control adaptive immunity. The R01 grant’s funding period began in February 2005, financed until January 2010. In this regard, Berkeley press officer Sanders told me:

“The campus notified the ORI about our investigation in March 2004 and sent the final report to the ORI immediately after the committee finalized it on Nov. 13, 2004.   
Prof. Raulet contacted his program official at the NIH during a similar time frame, explaining that the relevant data were incorrect and an investigation was underway, and that plans were underway to generate the knockout mice anew, which were later successful.“

As it happens, XY’s R01 grant was abruptly terminated, the funding stopped in January 2006. Yet XY was never sanctioned by HHS-ORI in the wake of the Berkeley findings, most likely because he quit his job in new York, cancelled his R01 grant, and left USA for good.

Thing is, XY and his lawyer have been referring to some “Oversight Review” by HHS-ORI and their mysterious letter which allegedly overruled everything. This letter was according to them a “final official „Statement of Exoneration“ of the Departments of Health & Human Services from the year 2007“, and whatever that letter really was, fact is: it was accepted by the academic authorities in Germany. The problem however: like XY’s knockout mice, this alleged „Statement of Exoneration“ is unavailable to anyone asking to see it. Certainly not from XY or his lawyer, I asked many times to see it, they just refuse outright.

But I have an HHS-ORI letter to XY, dated 18 April 2013. It makes it perfectly clear that they never overruled anything and never exonerated XY. I removed his name:

Highlight mine:

“The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has completed its oversight review of the allegations of research misconduct that arose upon your departure from the laboratory of David Roulet of the University o.f California, Berkeley (UCB). As you know, UCB conducted an inquiry and investigation into those allegations, and made findings of research misconduct […]

ORI’s oversight review, conducted by staff from the Division of Investigative Oversight found no basis for overturning UCB’s findings. However, for a number of reasons, ORI has determined to administratively close this case and not propose separate PHS findings and administrative remedies. This determination does not diminish UCB’s independent authority to make findings of research misconduct […] Thus, ORI’s determination not to make separate Public Health Service findings of research misconduct in this matter is not an exoneration of the UCB’s findings summarized above.“

I did check with HHS-ORI for that mysterious “Letter of Exoneration”. They informed me on 21 March 2022:

“ORI no longer has records for this matter. The records have been disposed of in accordance with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approved Records Schedule“.

No matter what XY and his German friends and lawyers imagine, HHS-ORI doesn’t even have a mandate to overrule misconduct findings by US universities. On 31 March 2022, I received this explanation from the HHS-ORI acting director Wanda K. Jones:

“ORI does not “overthrow” an institution’s findings, and in no circumstances do we provide a “statement of exoneration” to the institution or the respondent in the case.  Institutions are free to draw their own conclusions and take action on research misconduct they identify; they do not have to wait for ORI’s determination.  ORI conducts its own oversight of the institution’s completed proceedings, separate from the institution’s.  ORI may ask the institution to pursue additional aspects of the case that are insufficiently addressed in the institutional actions, or ORI may proceed to close the case. 

ORI’s oversight investigation leads to case closure in one of several ways – with PHS research misconduct findings; without findings of research misconduct (no misconduct); or decline to pursue (DTP).  Sometimes ORI closes a case earlier, during the institutional assessment or inquiry stage (accession closures), based on the institution’s reporting to us.  Please see our recent notice regarding ORI case closures at: https://ori.hhs.gov/blog/ori-case-closures.  In cases in which ORI does not make a separate PHS research misconduct finding, institutions retain authority under their own policies and procedures to make their own research misconduct findings or to draw their own conclusions about scientific or professional misconduct by the respondent. They can apply sanctions without requiring ORI’s input.  Regardless of outcome of ORI investigations, ORI’s work does not nullify an institution’s determination or actions.

Finally, ORI is not required to retain all records forever...”

To sum up: if this mysterious “Statement of Exoneration” from 2007 ever existed, it was NOT a statement of exoneration, at least to those who speak English. The “Oversight Review” by HHS-ORI must have determined that since the research misconduct was already established by UC Berkeley, and the guilty party abandoned his NIH grant and left United States forever, there was no point in trying to punish him with exclusion from NIH funding and from NIH grant review (the only sanctions available to HHS-ORI). But then again, Germans sometimes think they know English (and everything else) better than the Americans.

Having abandoned USA, XY returned to Germany. In 2007 he became full professor and deputy institute director at the University of Freiburg. In 2013, he moved to head a medical institute at the University of Mainz, where he was funded by a €1.5 million ERC grant. And in November 2016, he joined Charité Berlin, also as institute director, and as Einstein Professor. Soon after, XY became Fellow of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences.

I contacted these institutions, and shared the Berkeley report and the HHS-ORI letter with them.

Bastian Strauch, deputy press speaker of the University of Freiburg, informed me:

“The investigation regarding [XY] became known during the ongoing appointment process for the C3 Professorship for Microbiology and Molecular Infection Immunology in 2004 – specifically at the end of September 2004 after the appointment and before the appointment. His appointment was then deferred pending a final decision in the investigation in the United States. When the Department of Health & Human Services’ final official Statement of Exoneration was presented in 2007 exonerating [XY] of the allegations against him, his appointment followed. Until then, he had a temporary contract as a deputy professor. As far as we know today, the letter from HHS-ORI from 2013 was not known within the University of Freiburg. The departure of [XY] from the University of Freiburg to the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in 2013 was based on an external reputation. We are not aware of any other possible reasons for his departure.“

My pleas to see that “final official Statement of Exoneration” were rejected. Strauch wrote to me: “For legal reasons, the University of Freiburg is not authorized to pass on this or other documents.” Eventually, Julia Wandt, press speaker of the University of Freiburg, ordered me to accept her authority in an email from 4 April 2022:

“Among other things, I also saw the “Statement of Exoneration” from the Department of Health and Human Services.”

From the University Clinic of Mainz, their press speaker Tasso Enzweiler wrote to me on 17 November 2022:

“The responsible committees of the University Medical Center (UM) Mainz have thoroughly examined Prof. Dr. [XY]’s professional vita before his appointment. They were also aware of the accusations that you recently made, dear Mr. Schneider. The UM Mainz committees came to the conclusion that Professor [XY] had a very positive academic career, which was and is characterized by demonstrably excellent achievements.
The UM Mainz is aware that a procedure was discontinued by the US-ORI around ten years ago without any finding of scientific misconduct. As a general rule, we do not comment further on rumors, speculation and vague accusations.”

On 9 December 2021, Charité Berlin sent me an official letter, signed by their lawyer Patrizia Ziedek, and it was their only communication to me in the XY case. Key quote:

“...you are informed given that neither UC Berkeley nor other authorities have published the accusations against Prof. [XY] or imposed sanctions on him. The Charité has no reason to initiate measures in response to unsubstantiated allegations. Prof. [XY] is is a scientist of integrity and beyond reproach..”

That reply is very typical of Charité, a passive-aggressive way not only to defend their professors, but also to say what they think of people like me.

Ann-Christin Bolay, press speaker of the Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences (BBAW), educated me on 23 December 2021:

“The case you mentioned was closed many years ago after thorough examination; The Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences therefore refrains from commenting“

On 4 January 2022, Bolay added:

“There was no investigation into the case at the BBAW. We obtain our information in this regard from the Charité. It has the necessary expertise and the BBAW sees no reason to doubt this expertise“

The only two institutions in Germany who had absolutely no clue were incidentally the ones who financed him. First, the national funder, the German Research Council (DFG). On 14 December 2021, the DFG press speaker Marco Finetti thanked me for sharing that investigative report and the HHS-ORI letter:

“The DFG didn’t have any information about the facts you have described. We will inform you of any further steps the DFG may take.
We will also be following your possible reporting in this regard with interest – thank you in advance for letting us know.“

Also the DFG Team Scientific Integrity announced to investigate and get back in touch. Philip Ridder, DFG research integrity officer, informed me on 20 April 2022 that no investigation will be performed because there was no DFG funding involved. I then shared with Ridder the acknowledgments from one the fraudulent papers (Nature Immunology 2000) which lists a DFG grant to XY. Ridder replied:

“…we have come to the conclusion that the conduct practices which [XY] is accused of, occurred during a period in which [XY] was not funded by the DFG. For this reason, we have not initiated a preliminary review procedure in accordance with the DFG Rules of Procedure for Dealing with Suspected Cases of Scientific Misconduct. We are therefore unable to make any substantive statements about the case.“

That is standard procedure by DFG actually. All German professors are exempt from DFG investigations, unless their institution wants one. And you know where Charité stands.

There was nothing to investigate, certainly not the later grants XY obtained from DFG using those fabricated studies.

The second institution was the Einstein Foundation Berlin, who financed XY’s professorship for microbiology at Charité between 2016 and 2019. In his email to me from 15 December 2021, the Head of Communications of Einstein Foundation, Christian Martin, thanked me also for the information from Berkeley:

“No, the foundation had no information about this process. Thank you for letting us know about this“

There was also a third major funder. Between March 2013 and February 2018, XY has been receiving €1.5 million from the EU Commission, via his personal research grant from the European Research Council (ERC), about nutrient-controlled molecular pathways in mucosa-associated innate lymphocytes. The ERC chose not to react to my messages, so I can’t tell you if they knew about the Berkeley fraud findings against XY. From my experience, ERC has no clue about anything.

Conclusions are unchanged

It is shameful Raulet chose not to retract those fraudulent papers by XY, but instead issued corrections with statements like:

• “The conclusion in that paper that activated peritoneal macrophages express readily detectable NKG2D at the cell surface is now also in question, but the conclusions concerning natural killer cells and CD8 T cells remain unchanged.”
• “These major conclusions of the paper are unchanged. However, we wish to alert the community that in recent repetitions of the staining experiments we have failed to obtain clear-cut staining of activated bone marrow or peritoneal macrophages with antibodies to NKG2D.”

And the 2000 Nature Immunology paper wasn’t even corrected. XY’s former mentor Raulet only wrote this to me, in December 2021:

“Mr Schneider
The previous email from Robert Sanders mentioned that corrections and a corrigendum were published re the work you inquired about. Here are links to them. Note that one of the corrections refers to two articles. In each case the journal recommended this approach to address the problems with the papers.
Sincerely
David Raulet“

I informed all relevant authorities about the Berkeley report in November 2021. What changed for XY since? Not much.

The microbiology institute at Charité which XY is director of, still lists the same huge team of ELEVEN research groups, led by professors and tenure-track PIs. XY’s own group currently lists 6 PhD students and 2 postdocs (7 PhDs and 3 postdocs in 2021), exactly because Charite thinks XY is the right kind of mentor to decide on the next generation of scientists in Germany. In fact, he is even the spokesman of the Fresenius-funded doctoral college for medical students.

There is definitely no problem of money for XY. He is currently the leader of one and key participant in 3 other DFG-funded German research consortia. On 2 February 2024, Charité proudly announced that XY is going to lead a new “Consortium of systems medicine, clinical and experimental medicine”.

In 2023, Charité brought a long and boring interview with XY, presenting him as “one of the most cited scientists in his field” who is about to solve immunology, colon cancer and the Hallmarks of Health thanks to some groundbreaking discovery from 2008 and his Nature paper from 2019. Indeed, XY is a „Highly Cited Researcher“ since 2017, “one of the 161 top researchers worldwide who have been identified as particularly influential in immunology“, as Charité proudly reminded everyone during the pandemic in November 2021. XY was followed by Christian Drosten in that press release.

In April 2024, XY was celebrated in Berlin yellow press as “the secret star of the new Charité series“, a science-fiction show on the German public TV set in the year 2049. Predicting the shitty future of Charité, XY praised the technology of stool transplants:

“It is currently entirely conceivable that the transfer of a complex microbiome will become a clinical standard in the next few years”

In connection with that same sci-fi TV series, there was also an interview with XY by ARD magazine Brisant, a XY podcast in Deutschlandfunk Kultur, and even a Charité ‘s own announcement of a public talk “The medicine of the future – a talk about visions and realities” on 11 April 2024 with XY and the Charite CEO Heyo Kroemer.

As if, on orders of that same CEO Kroemer (hopefully not related?), Charité PR people have been pulling strings to raise XY’s profile. Such public declarations of support for questionable researchers are common practice in academia. Yet these are much more sinister than you think, the purpose is to both signal unconditional support and send a thinly veiled threat to the critics. Don’t mess with the Charité. Millions of of public money are in the game, and unlike XY, you are a nobody, an annoying bug they can squash anytime.

---

Coda: the Law is an Ass

Charité wasn’t always like this. Once, they did found their scientist guilty, were sued, had lost, and got taunted by German media. I wrote about some of it in November 2021 Shorts.

In brief, the neuroscientist and former Charité vice-dean Robert Nitsch and his mentee Nicolai Savaskan were subjected to three research misconduct investigations, one was led by biology professor and former GDR civil rights activist Jens Reich, who spoke of “an urgent suspicion of intentional manipulation or even falsification of data”. In August 2011, Nitsch and Savaskan both had to retract a paper (Meier et al FASEB J 2003). Later same year, another joint paper, Trimbuch et al 2009, was corrected because of duplicated in vivo recordings.

Savaskan was about to become full professor at Charité, but had to leave academia in 2009 (he eventually became public health office director in Berlin) because he was found guilty of research misconduct. Nitsch was at the time of the investigation already at the University of Mainz, just like XY. And it was the University of Mainz which publicly pushed for a total acquittal of Nitsch, with their own whitewashing report.

In 2013 Nitsch and Savaskan sued Charité in court and won spectacularly. In the name of German people, all misconduct charges were overruled, the court decreed that Charité had no right to meddle into a scientific dispute about figures in a paper, and the national newspaper Die Zeit triumphed:

“In this case, the university was apparently driven by excessive ambition, to act as a guardian of good scientific practice.”

Noteworthy: in 2007 the Charité Vice-Dean Nitsch was accused in the media of nepotism, having arranged a highly-paid job for his wife Frauke Zipp as scientific director of the outpatient clinic with Charité’s partner, the Helios-Clinic. At the same time, €15 million in public money were lost because Charité made its medical personnel to work for the private Helios-Clinic for free. The vice-dean Nitsch was responsible for this arrangement which he vehemently defended. Zipp later followed her husband to become professor in Mainz (quote: “I owe my husband my children and not my career“), but since 2017 her (former?) husband is head of medical school in Münster.

In 2019, Frankfurter Rundschau reported that Nitsch sued Charité again. In an injunction sentence, not only did the Berlin court agree with Nitsch’s lawyer that the public university “lacks the legal basis to set up investigative commissions to examine scientific misconduct“, it also ordered to reverse the retraction:

“Ultimately, the court found that the Charité should neither have published the reports of the investigative commissions nor contacted the journal. […]

“The Charité is not authorized to “evaluate research from a professional perspective and subject it to scientific criticism,” the decision states. “This would inadmissibly interfere with the constitutionally protected freedom of science.” The quality of work should be discussed by experts, not an administrative body like the Charité.”

In August 2013, the retraction was retracted and replaced with a long Correction containing a public apology by the Charite dean Annette Grüters-Kieslich, quotes from her original letter:

““In a final evaluation of the investigations carried about by reason of the letter stating the underlying facts, we find that these investigations do not proof of intentional falsifications, manipulation of plagiarism in this work.” (sic)
“As a result of our investigations, we correspondingly suggest the recommendation of the Johann Gutenberg University of Mainz to publish a written erratum from the scientist, Dr. Savaskan and Prof. Nitsch, for the correction of the mistakes contained in this publication.””

The retracted Meier et al 2003 paper was reinstalled by the journal after Nitsch “decided to repeat the experiments“, it was concluded “that the findings as reported in the paper in 2003 are valid and still stand.” But in 2021, Nitsch retracted another paper, Wulczyn et al 2007, “following an institutional investigation conducted by the Research Integrity Office at Charité” where the first author accepted full responsibility.

The Charité learned its lesson indeed: a professor is always innocent. Ask Antonia Joussen.

---