In a recent development, scientists at the renowned Dana-Farber Cancer Institute have disclosed an ongoing investigation into data manipulation in several research papers authored by institute leaders and top scientists, including CEO Laurie Glimcher and COO William Hahn. The investigation, which commenced over a year ago, has gained momentum after a scientist identified potential issues with figures in 57 papers co-authored by Dana-Farber researchers.

Barrett Rollins, the institute's research integrity officer, revealed that while the review process is still underway, some claims have been deemed serious enough to warrant discussions with journals regarding one paper retraction and corrections for others. Notably, none of the allegations investigated thus far have been dismissed for lack of scientific merit.

Sholto David, a scientific sleuth, started scrutinizing papers co-authored by Dana-Farber researchers in December and claims to have found problems with figures in 57 papers, several of which have been widely cited. David suspects deliberate image manipulation aimed at deceiving readers, which he alleges is a form of scientific misconduct. Some of these concerns were first flagged online years ago, while others were raised by David himself on a blog earlier this year.

Although Glimcher, Hahn, and Anderson did not respond to requests for comment, Glimcher and Irene Ghobrial, another top scientist at Dana-Farber, directed inquiries to the institute's communications office. Ghobrial did engage with David’s comments on PubPeer, expressing gratitude for the feedback and vowing to investigate the issues.

Rollins disclosed that investigations into scientific misconduct are nearing completion and involve some of the papers mentioned by David. However, he refrained from naming specific studies or researchers due to the institute's confidentiality policy. Rollins also stated that he was not involved in Glimcher's appointment as CEO in 2016 and was unaware of any issues with her previous research.

In response to the situation, Dana-Farber spokesperson Ellen Berlin emphasized that discrepancies in figures do not necessarily indicate misconduct, as they could be the result of honest mistakes. Berlin stressed the institute's commitment to maintaining integrity and accountability and assured that a thorough examination of the original data is being conducted to determine the appropriate corrective actions.

Sidd Jaiswal, a pathologist and cancer researcher at Stanford University, acknowledged that honest mistakes can occur in research papers and do not necessarily reflect ill intentions on the part of the scientist. Jaiswal highlighted the numerous analyses involved in producing a final document and the possibility of errors arising during this process.

The investigation at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute is ongoing, with the institute striving to address the potential misconduct and ensure the accuracy and reliability of its research.