A $59 Million Matter of Fraud and Hubris: The Anversa Stem Cell Story and Its Fallout

Piero Anversa -- NYTimes photo by Annie Tritt

Fabricated stem cell research and its fallout are back in the news this morning with excellent pieces from the New York Times and the Washington Post involving talk of "temptation" and the weakness of prestigious institutions.

First the piece by Gina Kolata in the New York Times,which includes the first substantial interview with Piero Anversa, the former Harvard researcher now identified as having produced more than 30 studies containing falsified or fabricated data dealing with heart research. Kolata wrote,

"Dr. Anversa’s story has laid bare some of the hazards of modern medical research: the temptation to embrace a promising new theory, the reluctance to heed contrary evidence and the institutional barriers to promptly stopping malfeasance. Even after three independent researchers were unable to reproduce his findings in 2004, Harvard hired him in 2007 and his lab continued to churn out studies upholding his theory."

Anversa, 80, is now living in New York. He told Kolata in an interview in his apartment that he did nothing wrong and that he was "betrayed by a rogue colleague who altered data in paper after paper."

Kolata has more from Anversa, but also dives into the history and ramifications of the scandal and its implications involving the culture of science. She described the case as "a particularly acrid cautionary tale of scientific hubris."

A couple of highlights from the piece.

• "'Science at this level is like a battleship, and it’s really hard to turn it around,' said Dr. Jonathan Moreno, a professor of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania.'People get emotionally invested, financially invested, professionally invested.'" 

• “'This was a perfect storm of ego, wishful thinking and lack of accountability,' said Dr. Jil C. Tardiff, a professor of medicine at the University of Arizona, and a heart-muscle cell researcher."'

 Kolata concluded:

"It did not surprise some in academia that the bold promises of the research persisted despite the contested evidence. 

 "There was an argument in the philosophy of science about whether there is such a thing as a ‘crucial experiment,' said Dr. Moreno, the ethics professor, referring to a study that answers a question once and for all. 

"'It turns out there isn’t. People can see what they want to see.'"

Carolyn Johnson of the Washington Post covered much of the same ground but has more on suspension of a clinical trial related to Anversa's work. Johnson also pointed out that Anversa received $59 million from the federal government for his research. Harvard has since been fined $10 million by the federal government.  

The trial is in the midst of recruiting patients. Johnson wrote,

"The decision to temporarily pause the trial came 'out of an abundance of caution,' said David Goff, director of the Division of Cardiovascular Sciences at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, who said the trial’s scientific rationale is largely based on animal studies not conducted by Anversa.... 

"Goff said the board charged with overseeing the safety and integrity of the trial was convened last week and NIH leadership made the decision to pause the trial, which has enrolled 125 of 144 patients, to allow a thorough review.

"'Our commitment, first and foremost, is to patient safety. We haven’t seen any safety signals related to the cell treatment, but we can’t do any of our research without the partnership of our participants, and we make a commitment to our participants that their safety is our highest priority,' Goff said. The pause will allow the board to examine the trial and 'assure that it continues to meet the highest levels of adherence to participant safety and scientific integrity.'"