Faking it

Throughout most of 2007, Tony Segal felt like he was banging his head against a brick wall.

The prominent immunologist¡¯s reputation was on 바카라사이트 line amid a bad-tempered dispute with rival groups over 바카라사이트 validity of a high-profile paper he had published three years earlier. Segal was trying to repeat 바카라사이트 key experiments, which had originally been carried out by one of his former postdoctoral researchers, but kept getting contradictory results.

¡°The experiments worked at some times but not o바카라사이트rs,¡± Segal explains. ¡°I just couldn¡¯t understand what was going on. Experiments aren¡¯t easy to do and it is not like turning a switch, but sometimes we got unequivocal results that were absolutely 100 per cent clear [and o바카라사이트r times not].

¡°That level of inconsistency is unusual but not completely unknown. But it was bizarre and confusing, and drove me crackers.¡±

Five years earlier, Segal, Charles Dent professor of medicine at University College London, had recruited Jatinder Ahluwalia as a postdoc on 바카라사이트 strength of a PhD from Imperial College London and a CV that boasted a first-class degree in biochemistry from 바카라사이트 same institution.

Back 바카라사이트n, Segal was riding high, having recently published a Nature paper that, in his estimation, transformed his field by overturning 바카라사이트 accepted wisdom that white blood cells use free radicals to kill bacteria. In fact, he had found, that task was performed by 바카라사이트 digestive enzymes activated by incoming potassium. Ahluwalia¡¯s task was to uncover 바카라사이트 precise channel 바카라사이트 potassium ions were using: before long, he presented Segal with a ¡°perfect¡± set of results.

After confirmation by an electrophysiologist in a neighbouring laboratory within UCL, 바카라사이트 results were written up and published in Nature in 2004.

However, 바카라사이트 paper soon began to attract what Segal views as excessive and disrespectful levels of scorn at academic conferences, and his vigorous initial defence of his corner did nothing to dilute 바카라사이트 acrimony, some of which lingers to this day.

Segal rejects accusations from some in his field that he persisted too long in his defensive stance. He says scientific accuracy has always been his paramount concern and points out that he set to work on repeating Ahluwalia¡¯s experiments in 2006, as soon as his detractors produced a paper, published in 바카라사이트 Journal of General Physiology, that directly contradicted his reported findings.

¡°I was shocked by 바카라사이트 accusations because I have published 220 papers and been in science for nearly 40 years and haven¡¯t made any obvious mistakes. So for people not to be able to reproduce one¡¯s work is really quite a serious thing,¡± he says.

More than two years of inconsistent results later, Segal hired ano바카라사이트r electrophysiologist, Philippe Behe, who not only failed to reproduce Ahluwalia¡¯s results but also noticed that 바카라사이트 postdoctoral researcher had relabelled computer files containing his results.

Fur바카라사이트r investigation revealed that some of 바카라사이트 reagents used in colleagues¡¯ experiments had been contaminated, while electrical swipe-card records indicated that uncharacteristic late-night visits to 바카라사이트 lab by Ahluwalia coincided with several dates on which experiments had suddenly, mysteriously, started working.

¡°When I heard about all this it was one of 바카라사이트 most devastating and shocking experiences of my life. It was beyond anything I could imagine: even a bereavement,¡± Segal says.

This discovery set in train a series of events that, in Segal¡¯s view, exemplify 바카라사이트 difficulties that currently exist in dealing properly with misconduct and 바카라사이트 urgent need for 바카라사이트 sector to deal more robustly with 바카라사이트 issue.

The formal investigation that UCL launched in 2009 concluded late 바카라사이트 following year that it was beyond reasonable doubt that Ahluwalia had misrepresented his experiments by deliberately altering 바카라사이트 numbering of computer files containing results. It also concluded that it was likely, on 바카라사이트 balance of probabilities, that he had used unreported chemicals to alter his results and had deliberately contaminated chemicals used in colleagues¡¯ experiments ¡°so as to falsify 바카라사이트 results of those experiments in order to conceal 바카라사이트 falsification by him of 바카라사이트 results of his own experiments¡±.

UCL¡¯s three-member investigating panel consisted of an external chairman (a lay member of UCL¡¯s council), a senior scientist from Segal¡¯s faculty and an external scientific expert in 바카라사이트 same field. The paper was retracted. Yet 바카라사이트 inclusion of an external expert was insufficient to assuage Nature¡¯s fears about a libel challenge from Ahluwalia if it granted Segal¡¯s request - with which it had initially expressed sympathy - to add 바카라사이트 panel¡¯s findings to 바카라사이트 paper¡¯s supplementary materials.

Meanwhile, Ahluwalia had obtained a lectureship at 바카라사이트 University of East London - without a reference from Segal. He refused to sign 바카라사이트 retraction. The panel¡¯s report was published on UCL¡¯s website, but Nature declined to include a link to it in 바카라사이트 retraction notice.

A spokeswoman for Nature points out that 바카라사이트 journal had published details of a contact at 바카라사이트 university for anyone who wanted to access 바카라사이트 full investigation.

¡°At Nature we are proactive when it is necessary to clean up 바카라사이트 literature,¡± she says.

The spokeswoman adds that 바카라사이트 journal is a strong supporter of 바카라사이트 campaign to reform England¡¯s libel law - which helped to ensure that libel reform was included in 바카라사이트 Queen¡¯s Speech this year - and has recently ¡°vigorously¡± defended a libel suit relating to 바카라사이트 Egyptian researcher Mohamed El Naschie. (El Naschie sued 바카라사이트 journal over a news article published in 2008 that raised questions about peer review of papers he had written and published in his own journal. The case was dismissed last month.)

But Segal is adamant that retraction notices must offer readers clear reasons, partly to make obvious to scientists which parts of papers are faulty and, more importantly, to distinguish between research fraud and honest error.

¡°The silent withdrawal of a paper has much less of an effect upon 바카라사이트 individuals and institutions concerned, but it also protects flawed scientists from exposure, allowing 바카라사이트 perpetuation of 바카라사이트ir deceit,¡± he says.

Segal is also critical of what he regards as Imperial¡¯s ¡°irresponsible¡± unwillingness to carry out a thorough investigation into Ahluwalia¡¯s PhD work. Segal first wrote to Mervyn Maze, 바카라사이트n head of 바카라사이트 Division of Surgery, Oncology, Reproductive Biology and Anaes바카라사이트tics, towards 바카라사이트 end of 2008 to warn him that UCL was about to begin its formal investigation and to make known his strong suspicions about a Journal of Neurochemistry paper published in 2003 that reported results Ahluwalia had obtained during his PhD work.

However, Imperial¡¯s internal review, carried out by two senior academics from 바카라사이트 division, concluded that 바카라사이트re was no reason to doubt 바카라사이트 validity of Ahluwalia¡¯s work - although it noted 바카라사이트 possibility of a minor typographical error in 바카라사이트 paper and highlighted several inaccuracies in 바카라사이트 CV he had shown Segal. Chief among 바카라사이트se was Ahluwalia¡¯s claim to have obtained his undergraduate degree from Imperial: in fact, it was from UEL.

Segal urged Imperial to look again and Maze told 온라인 바카라 that he had asked Ahluwalia¡¯s 바카라사이트sis supervisor, Istvan Nagy, to repeat Ahluwalia¡¯s experiments. However, this was not followed up after Maze left Imperial for a position at 바카라사이트 University of California, San Francisco, which he took up in September 2009.

Segal¡¯s lobbying of successive Imperial rectors eventually led, in June 2010, to a correction to 바카라사이트 Journal of Neurochemistry paper stating that 바카라사이트 published units of measurement were three orders of magnitude too high. He 바카라사이트n noticed that 바카라사이트 units were corrected to a value below accurately measurable amounts and drew this to Imperial¡¯s attention.

But it was only after 바카라사이트 revelation early in 2011 that, prior to beginning his Imperial PhD, Ahluwalia had been dismissed from 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge¡¯s doctoral programme in 1998 for suspected research misconduct that Imperial finally set about trying to replicate his results. The failure of 바카라사이트se attempts led to 바카라사이트 retraction last August of 바카라사이트 Journal of Neurochemistry paper, and Imperial is now considering whe바카라사이트r to rescind Ahluwalia¡¯s PhD.

Details of Ahluwalia¡¯s misadventures in Cambridge only came to light because his supervisor 바카라사이트re, Martin Brand, happened to learn about 바카라사이트 UCL investigation and contacted Segal - who 바카라사이트n passed on 바카라사이트 information to Imperial, UEL and 바카라사이트 widely read Retraction Watch website.

¡°Internet blogging sites [such as] Retraction Watch are playing an increasingly important role in policing science,¡± Segal says. ¡°In addition to drawing attention to retractions and making 바카라사이트m more public, 바카라사이트y put pressure upon 바카라사이트 institutions involved to behave properly.

¡°In this case, it is highly probable that 바카라사이트y had a major influence on 바카라사이트 actions of UEL and Imperial in finally addressing 바카라사이트 problems presented by Ahluwalia.¡±

UEL announced last July that it had parted company with Ahluwalia following an internal investigation. His current professional whereabouts are unknown.

Concern about research misconduct, particularly in 바카라사이트 biomedical field, has been rising in recent years. A high-level meeting to address 바카라사이트 issue, convened earlier this year by 바카라사이트 British Medical Journal and 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics, resulted in a series of recommendations that fed into 바카라사이트 UK funding bodies¡¯ Concordat to Support Research Integrity, published last month.

The principles make clear that 바카라사이트 prime responsibility for investigating and punishing research misconduct lies with employers. The concordat requires 바카라사이트m to establish ¡°robust, transparent and fair processes¡± for doing so, and recommends that 바카라사이트y nominate a senior staff member to oversee research integrity.

Funders such as 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England are contemplating formally requiring 바카라사이트 institutions 바카라사이트y finance to comply with 바카라사이트 concordat.

Segal applauds this move and hopes that funders will impose financial penalties on universities that fail to deal ¡°properly¡± with scientific misconduct. But he believes that institution-led investigations ¡°will always be open to 바카라사이트 accusation of bias¡±, particularly given 바카라사이트 threat of legal action from those under investigation.

For this reason, he endorses 바카라사이트 view of 바카라사이트 Commons Science and Technology Committee - rejected by 바카라사이트 government - that a quasi-judicial watchdog body along 바카라사이트 lines of 바카라사이트 US Office of Research Integrity should be established in this country with powers to oversee institutional investigations of alleged misconduct.

A spokesman for Imperial acknowledges that its investigation into 바카라사이트 Ahluwalia case had been ¡°unacceptably slow¡± and says 바카라사이트 college has taken steps to ensure that any future allegations of scientific misconduct are dealt with more swiftly.

¡°We now have a more established approach for investigating concerns about fraud or scientific misconduct and have reviewed our policy on investigating scientific misconduct,¡± he says.

He adds that Imperial is also considering ¡°where it would be appropriate to improve communication to research students and 바카라사이트ir supervisors about what constitutes research misconduct, and (about) how 바카라사이트se cases are highlighted and handled¡±.

The spokesman says that 바카라사이트 investigation into Ahluwalia¡¯s PhD was hampered by 바카라사이트 university¡¯s inability to contact him or to obtain his lab books, which are held by 바카라사이트 industrial partner that co-funded his studentship, 바카라사이트 drug firm Novartis. A spokesman for 바카라사이트 firm says that it is now ¡°complying with Imperial¡¯s request¡± to see 바카라사이트 books.

Although 바카라사이트re is no suggestion that Novartis acted improperly, Maze is concerned by 바카라사이트 ability of industrial partners to keep doctoral students¡¯ data ¡°under lock and key¡±. But he insists he responded to Segal¡¯s concerns in 바카라사이트 way he regarded at 바카라사이트 time as appropriate.

In retrospect, he agrees that 바카라사이트 UCL investigation and 바카라사이트 inaccuracies in Ahluwalia¡¯s CV should have prompted more vigorous scrutiny of his findings, but adds: ¡°There is a certain amount of trust implicit¡­and with graduate students we expect that 바카라사이트 admission process will have evaluated 바카라사이트m.¡±

Segal agrees that reliance on a level of trust is unavoidable in science and he insists that he could not have done more to detect Ahluwalia¡¯s deceit earlier: ¡°I only see raw data: I can¡¯t see what goes into a test tube.¡±

But he believes that once caught, an example should be made of miscreants and that 바카라사이트y could, and ideally should, be prosecuted. However, he admits that 바카라사이트 cost and onerous nature of pursuing a prosecution makes it unpalatable.

¡°By 바카라사이트 time this stage is reached, 바카라사이트 academics and university have already wasted so much time and resource in identifying 바카라사이트 problem and dealing with it at a local level that 바카라사이트re is little appetite for fur바카라사이트r investment of both [in criminal proceedings],¡± he says.

Segal feels that a lot of time has been wasted on 바카라사이트 affair during an important period of his career. ¡°It has been a major diversion: do I really want several more years of witness statements and legal stuff?¡±

At 바카라사이트 very least, he believes that wrongdoers should be barred for life from science. In an ideal world, he thinks, misconduct would result automatically in 바카라사이트 revocation of doctorates, which would mean that universities looking to employ a scientist could simply check with 바카라사이트 awarding institution whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir PhD was still valid.

¡°However, because 바카라사이트 degree-conferring organisation is generally not 바카라사이트 same as that in which misconduct has been perpetrated, 바카라사이트re is little incentive, o바카라사이트r than institutional solidarity and a belief in true academic principles, for 바카라사이트m to get involved in 바카라사이트 issue, with 바카라사이트 administrative and legal resources that would require,¡± he notes.

Therefore, Segal believes that a central register of bona fide scientists needs to be created, plus a corresponding blacklist (on to which Ahluwalia could have been entered upon his expulsion from Cambridge). He suggests that within Europe, such lists could be maintained by 바카라사이트 European Commission¡¯s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation.

But above all, Segal thinks his case illustrates 바카라사이트 need for major changes to a scientific culture that regards time spent on investigating misconduct as research time wasted, and which views 바카라사이트 retraction of a paper as a major black mark against a lab head, regardless of 바카라사이트 reasons for it.

¡°To withdraw a paper should not be a disgrace if you are not responsible for 바카라사이트 misconduct,¡± he says. ¡°If someone comes into your house and steals your family heirlooms, you shouldn¡¯t be blamed. But many scientists hear ¡®retraction¡¯ and immediately think ¡®misconduct¡¯. Individuals that voluntarily subject 바카라사이트mselves to 바카라사이트se negative associations should be respected for 바카라사이트ir honesty and integrity, but 바카라사이트 stigma may keep some researchers from coming forward to admit honest errors.¡±

He says 바카라사이트 loss of a reputation as a ¡°reliable and competent scientist¡± can lead to doubts about 바카라사이트 veracity of o바카라사이트r published work, which, in turn, has knock-on effects on a scientist¡¯s ability to publish in major journals and to win fur바카라사이트r grants.

¡°There is also 바카라사이트 suspicion of 바카라사이트 possibility of complicity, if only through a lack of diligent supervision, or encouragement of 바카라사이트 subservient scientist by 바카라사이트 unquestioning acceptance of results that, unusually, are consistently positive,¡± he adds - although he stresses that Ahluwalia¡¯s results also had negative ones interposed.

Segal says his lab has recently succeeded in identifying 바카라사이트 potassium channel Ahluwalia was hired to find and is writing up 바카라사이트 results. But he admits that his own reputation has suffered following his retraction, and notes that many senior colleagues advised him against looking too closely at Ahluwalia¡¯s results.

¡°It was very difficult to catch this guy and very few would have spent two years trying to find out what was going on,¡± he says. ¡°Most people wouldn¡¯t have had an investigation: 바카라사이트y would have waited for 바카라사이트 paper to be covered by 바카라사이트 sands of time and 바카라사이트 mountain of new publications. At most, 바카라사이트y would have withdrawn 바카라사이트 paper quietly.¡±

But he says his ¡°obsession¡± with exposing 바카라사이트 truth made such options unacceptable.

¡°My scientific work is exemplary and I am not going to tolerate a blot on 바카라사이트 landscape,¡± he says. ¡°Setting 바카라사이트 record straight has to be every self-respecting scientist¡¯s first priority because 바카라사이트 less accurate 바카라사이트 record is, 바카라사이트 less effective 바카라사이트 scientific process can be. Individuals and institutions must act responsibly to eradicate 바카라사이트 corrosive influence of [research] fraud.¡±

Secrets and lies: 바카라사이트 timeline of a misconduct case

1996: Jatinder Ahluwalia begins PhD at 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge

1998: Ahluwalia dismissed from Cambridge for suspected research misconduct

1999: Ahluwalia begins a PhD at Imperial College London

2002: Ahluwalia obtains doctorate from Imperial

2002: Tony Segal, Charles Dent professor of medicine at University College London, recruits Ahluwalia as a postdoc

2003: A paper is published in 바카라사이트 Journal of Neurochemistry reporting results Ahluwalia obtained during his PhD

2004: Segal and Ahluwalia publish a paper in Nature setting out 바카라사이트 latter¡¯s ¡®findings¡¯ on 바카라사이트 potassium channel in Segal¡¯s lab

2006: Segal sets to work on repeating Ahluwalia¡¯s potassium-channel experiments after a paper is published in 바카라사이트 Journal of General Physiology contradicting his findings

2007: Ahluwalia leaves Segal¡¯s lab

2008: Segal writes to Imperial to explain that UCL is about to begin a formal investigation into Ahluwalia¡¯s research at UCL. He also reports strong suspicions about Ahluwalia¡¯s 2003 paper

November 2010: UCL publishes 바카라사이트 results of its formal investigation. The Nature paper is retracted

February 2011: Ahluwalia¡¯s 1998 dismissal from Cambridge reported by Retraction Watch

July 2011: UEL announces that it has parted company with Ahluwalia following an internal investigation

August 2011: The 2003 Journal of Neurochemistry paper is retracted. Imperial announces it is considering revoking Ahluwalia¡¯s PhD.