Anne Peyroche removed as interim CNRS President as her publications are “questioned”

Anne Peyroche removed as interim CNRS President as her publications are “questioned”

Things are happening at the French state’s network of research institutes, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). Their interim president, Anne Peyroche, was now removed prematurely from her position due to evidence of data manipulations in her papers on PubPeer, which I helped uncover. As all credit goes to PubPeer (run chiefly by two CNRS researchers), the announcement unfortunately makes no reference to my call for a minor revolution at CNRS, where these data manipulations were presented to wider public. The official letter which I obtained, is below, both in English translation and its French original.

Another problematic CNRS chief scientist, Catherine Jessus, who as director of l’Institut des sciences biologiques (INSB) is the head biologist at CNRS, was acquitted in November 2017 by a secret investigation at l’Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) despite all that long list of suspected data manipulations found in her papers (which I originally presented in this article). As Peyroche faces disciplinary investigation by her employer, the Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA), nothing of that kind seems to threaten Jessus. Instead, those CNRS researchers who dare to protest against her  research integrity shortcomings are being threatened and terrorized, by a furious Jessus herself and her supporters at the top of CNRS.

Finally, a particularly data manipulations-ridden Institut de Biologie Moléculaire des Plantes (IBMP) in Strasbourg, former home of the legendary Olivier Voinnet (whom Jessus once investigated for doing those same naughty things she might have just a sbadly engaged herself in) has issued a Code for Ethics and Responsible research, which warns potential perpetrators:

IBMP defines scientific misconduct as:

The selective manipulation, fabrication or falsification of scientific data.

Thing is, IBMP director Laurence Maréchal-Drouard with her PhD student and now tenured lab member Thalia Salinas recently went to PubPeer to admit exactly this kind of misconduct, after I published evidence of data manipulations in Drouard’s many publications and Salinas’ doctorate thesis. Continue reading “Anne Peyroche removed as interim CNRS President as her publications are “questioned””

UCL fibs Parliament about trachea transplants

UCL fibs Parliament about trachea transplants

The esteemed London university UCL seems to live in its own world. There, the regenerative medicine magic thrives, living organs miraculously grow in labs, while stem cell-made trachea transplants proved a blessing for humanity, despite the negative vibes from UCL’s former honorary professor Paolo Macchiarini. UCL’s own laryngology professor and regenerative medicine enthusiast Martin Birchall cured several patients already, and it is imperative that he is allowed to save more lives with his tracheas and voiceboxes, regenerated from dead decellurised carcasses using patient’s own bone marrow cells. Scientific evidence and research integrity are nothing but cumbersome bureaucracy, which restrain the genius of Birchall, whose educated guess alone should suffice as solid proof.

This is basically how UCL replied to the to request from the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons, following a critique of Birchall’s trachea transplants submitted as RES0022 on November 21st 2017 by the Liverpool scientists  Patricia Murray and Raphael LévyThe undated UCL reply appeared online around the New Year and is a staunch defence of  Birchall’s endeavours, while calling the two Liverpool researchers “emotive” and dismissing the evidence on my site as inaccurate.  It is authored by UCL Registrar Wendy Appleby, who incidentally was now appointed by UCL to investigate Birchall’s data re-use, where he apparently resurrected long-dead pigs twice, by turning some ancient animal experiment data with regenerated larynx into two fresh and very distinct studies.

The biggest inaccuracy, or barefaced lie (as you prefer), is UCL’s pretence that they had nothing at all to do with a certain lethal transplant of a cadeveric trachea, performed by Macchiarini on July 13th 2010 in Italy on the young British patient Keziah Shorten. I have been protesting to UCL Hospital (UCLH) and the British information authorities for a whole year against the refusal of UCLH to release the information about their involvement into that trachea transplant, and eventually UCLH was forced to reply to me. Even then they only admitted what I already knew, and now they hide this information from the UK Parliament inquiry. I will share it here then. Continue reading “UCL fibs Parliament about trachea transplants”

Nature rewards data manipulation with a Mentoring Award

Nature rewards data manipulation with a Mentoring Award

In Spain, there seems to be a tradition of reacting to emerging evidence of data manipulation with handing out prestigious awards to authors of these papers. This is how we were all taught that all the PubPeer evidence matters nothing whatsoever, as Pura Munoz-Canoves, Maria Pia Cosma and Manel Esteller were celebrated with prizes and grants for their research achievements (read here , here and here).  Now there is a new popular academic hero in Spain, Carlos López-Otín, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Oviedo, and EMBO member. Lopez-Otin was now awarded a 2017 Mentoring Award,  presented to him by Sir Philip Campbell, on behalf of his journal Nature, which Editor-in-Chief Sir Philip has been for the last 22 years.

The journal Nature remains the highest authority in science, this Mentoring Award is Sir Philip’s parting present to the Nature-reading scientific community, as he is being promoted inside Springer Nature’s publishing hierarchy. It is in this way a statement of what Nature and its publisher think of research integrity. Lopez-Otin’s evidence record on PubPeer is telling enough, however most of the evidence of digitally manipulated gel images there was posted around 2-3 months ago, by the pseudonymous Claire Francis. Maybe the evidence appeared too late, and the award decision couldn’t be stopped anymore. Which would explain why Nature deleted their own tweet announcing the mentorship awards after I replied to it with PubPeer evidence on Lopez-Otin’s papers. According to another Nature website, which was for some reason also deleted, the closing date for nominations was Monday 31 July 2017. So I share some examples below, all are from papers where Lopez-Otin is last and corresponding author.

Continue reading “Nature rewards data manipulation with a Mentoring Award”

Karl Lenhard Rudolph barred from DFG funding for 2 years, as supportive peers flock to his conference

Karl Lenhard Rudolph barred from DFG funding for 2 years, as supportive peers flock to his conference

More trouble for the German stem cell and DNA damage researcher Karl Lenhard Rudolph (not to be confused this Christmas season with Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer), after his own Leibniz Society found him guilty of misconduct in 8 papers and forced his resignation as director of the the Fritz-Lippmann-Institute (FLI) in Jena (read here). Before that, FLI he used to head was raided by the police for suspected animal abuse, and forbidden to perform any mouse experiments. Today the central German funding agency DFG issued a press release declaring that Rudolph received a written reprimand for data manipulation in 3 of his recent papers, and was barred from DFG funding for 2 years. As usual in Germany, no investigative reports were released, we know no details or which papers or which data is affected. The DFG assures that Rudolph was only responsible by failing to provide oversight, and that no data was faked anyway, though the previous Leibniz Society investigation determined the loss of original data and lab books.

This is also probably why Rudolph is still welcome at the ISSCR Annual Meeting 2018, to take place on 20-23 June, 2018 in Melbourne, Australia, where he is even listed as Plenary Speaker, for some reason under his very much outdated affiliation of the Hannover Medical School MHH (amazing university btw, read more here). Rudolph also used to be listed as invited speaker at the prestigious Keystone Symposium “Pushing the Limits of Healthspan and Longevity“, to take place also in Hannover, on April 15th -19th, 2018, but then something strange happened and Rudolph’s name was removed from the programme. Never mind, for Rudolph set up his own meeting, at FLI in Jena, and almost everyone who counts is coming to show support. Continue reading “Karl Lenhard Rudolph barred from DFG funding for 2 years, as supportive peers flock to his conference”

Jungebluth injunction hearing, another court travesty

Yesterday, November 23rd 2017, I travelled 600 km to Berlin to stand my second injunction trial, instigated by Philipp Jungebluth, former student and acolyte of the scandal surgeon. The first injunction was achieved by Jungebluth based on his claim to be world-famous, renowned researcher and clinician, who helped save the lives of patients like Andemariam Beyene and Hannah Warren with plastic tracheas and published about this in The Lancet (a paper which is now up for retraction due to his and Macchiarini’s proven misconduct). The second injunction was pushed against my article about an unpublished manuscript of Macchiarini’s and Jungebluth’s, from which I have quoted and interpreted with reference to the quotes. That injunction was founded now on the opposite: Jungebluth denies to have had anything at all to do with any of Macchiarini’s trachea transplants, aside of a very general academic, but never ever any clinical, contribution.

The hearing yesterday was a proper farce. It began with the judge asking Jungebluth’s lawyer why he didn’t forbid me to say his client had anything at all to do with Claudia Castillo’s transplant as well (read more here, also about Jungebluth’s role). The court and indicated it would be more than happy to oblige Jungebluth and his lawyer if they were interested. Soon it became rather obvious that the main judge and his two colleagues have never read my English-language article before passing the injunction against it, that they are more confident in their knowledge of English language than they should be, and that they have no understanding whatsoever on the practices of how a biomedical research paper is written. Yet they believe that their power position allows them to make such decisions and disperse punishments nevertheless.

The main issue was the authors’ contributions statement “P.J. assisted in clinical transplantations and preclinical experiments and helped to write the report” which went with the unpublished manuscript describing 9 cadaveric trachea transplants in human patients and some rat experiments. Jungebluth and his lawyer never denied the existence of that manuscript or my quotes from it. But now guess how the judges understood the statement “P.J. assisted in clinical transplantations“?

Continue reading “Jungebluth injunction hearing, another court travesty”

Swedish Central Ethics Review Board finds Macchiarini guilty of misconduct, requests retraction of 6 papers

Swedish Central Ethics Review Board finds Macchiarini guilty of misconduct, requests retraction of 6 papers

Breaking news, Central Ethics Review Board (CEPN) decided today on the case of trachea transplant surgeon Paolo Macchiarini. The expert review by Martin Björck, professor of surgery at University of Uppsala, and Detlev Ganten, professor emeritus of pharmacology and former CEO of the Charité, on which this decision is based, is available here on my site.

Here the press release I received:

The Expert Group on Scientific Misconduct has on request from the Karolinska Institut (KI) delivered a Statement in a case where Paolo Macchiarini is one of the researchers accused of scientific misconduct.
The case comprises six articles which mainly deals with transplantation of synthetic tracheas. These articles have previously been reviewed by Professor Bengt Gerdin, who found scientific misconduct in all six articles. Despite that, KI choose to clear Paolo Macchiarini and the co-authors. KI have thereafter opened the case again.
The Expert Group have appointed two external experts, Professor Martin Björck, Uppsala and Professor Detlev Ganten, Berlin. They have similarly to Bengt Gerdin, founded that there arescientific misconduct in the articles in question.
The Expert Group state that the transplantations are described successfully in the articles, which is not the fact. The Expert Group also establish that the information in the articles are misleading and beautifying regarding the patients conditions and furthermore that information has been withhold in this purpose and that this constitutes scientific misconduct. In addition,there is false information of ethical approval, which also constitute scientific misconduct.
The Expert Group finds that all co-authors to the six articles are guilty of scientific misconduct. The responsibility is however different amongst the authors. The main responsibility lies on Paolo Macchiarini as the main author and research-leader and others who have had a more prominent role in the research and the authorship. The more detailed responsibility and the future consequences for the respective authors is up to their employers to decide.
The Expert Group request the different publications to withdraw all six articles.

Continue reading “Swedish Central Ethics Review Board finds Macchiarini guilty of misconduct, requests retraction of 6 papers”

Swedish police investigation acquitted Macchiarini on advice of misconduct-tainted trachea transplanters

Swedish police investigation acquitted Macchiarini on advice of misconduct-tainted trachea transplanters

On October 12th 2017, the Swedish prosecutor Jennie Nordin  gave a long-awaited press conference about the case of the scandal surgeon Paolo Macchiarini. The surprise hardly anyone expected was: all manslaughter charges were dropped, the case closed. The operations on three patients, whom Macchiarini gave a plastic trachea at the hospital of the Karolinska Institutet (KI), and who died as the result, were declared  mere negligence. Andemariam Beyene, Chris Lyles and Yesim Cetir (details of their cases here) were considered as dying anyway and without any other possibility to help, in fact the prosecution decreed that there was no way to prove if they would have lived longer had Macchiarini not experimented on them without ethics permits or any previous animal testing.

While Sweden and the world listened in disbelief at the words of Nordin, everyone wondered how could the police investigators come to such radically different conclusion about the medical aspects of these trachea transplant operations than the experts in Sweden and worldwide, who clearly see Macchiarini’s trachea transplants as unethical human experimenting and misconduct (see here). The prosecution refused to divulge which experts advised them though, also their assessments remain confidential. Now, thanks to KI’s emeritus professor and whistleblower Johan Thyberg, I found out what the Chairman of the Judicial Council Camilla Olsson, and her rapporteur Robert Grundin wrote to the prosecution:

“The Board has obtained the opinion of Professor Hasse Ejnell and Professor Michael Olausson”

Update 27.10.2017: Prosecutor Nordin confirmed to Thyberg by email that the experts appointed by the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) were indeed Hasse Ejnell and Michael Olausson.

These are the two clinical professors from the University of Gothenburg who themselves transplanted a cadaveric trachea, without obtaining a proper ethics vote or an approval of authorities on the treatment and its medication. The patient died soon afterwards and the publication describing that operation  (Berg et al, Tissue Eng Part A. 2014) was retracted for data manipulations. The scientist behind this was the notorious Gothenburg regenerative medicine researcher Suchitra Sumitran-Holgersson. She and Olausson were both found guilty of misconduct and ethics breach by the University of Gothenburg, regarding that trachea transplantation as well as transplants of “regenerated” veins into three child patients.

On top of this, Olausson was involved into the case of Yesim Cetir, Macchiarini’s third patient. Unlike previous two patients Yesim had no slow-growing or any kind of cancer, all she had was a tracheostomy due to damaged trachea after a botched operation in her home country Turkey. With such a defect alone, she was in no life danger at all, as long as she did not try to swim. It was Macchiarini who declared her in his recent television interview as “bleeding a glass of blood” daily, or the Swedish prosecution claiming she was suffering of “life-threatening” chest infection, without explaining how this can be cured with a plastic trachea transplant. Olausson, who helped the prosecution form this diagnosis, has made together with Sumitran-Holgersson a cadaveric trachea which was supposed to save Yesim’s life after her first plastic trachea transplant failed. Macchiarini’s acolyte Philipp Jungebluth (the one who keeps suing me in court in Germany) travelled to Gothenburg to pick up that trachea in 2013.  Macchiarini then changed his mind, sent Olausson his necro-trachea back and implanted another plastic graft into Yesim. Which wade matters even worse, Yesim died in March of this year in the hospital of the Temple University, USA. Her father Hayrullah, who dedicated all his time and attention to trying to save her, died soon after Yesim, on untreated cancer.

Continue reading “Swedish police investigation acquitted Macchiarini on advice of misconduct-tainted trachea transplanters”