Sunday, October 21, 2018

Fabrication and Stem Cell Research: A Tale of 31 Retractions (Maybe), $63 Million and Heavy News Coverage

Stem cell research fraud was big news this past week. It involved millions of dollars, the reputations of researchers and prestigious institutions, lots of wasted work and damage to the entire field. 

The case, which attracted international attention in the mainstream media, involves a prominent heart researcher, Piero Anversa, formerly of  Harvard, and requests for 31 retractions.  STAT/Retraction Watch broke the story in a piece written by Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. The New York Times, the Washington Post and other publications followed. 

As the New York Times summarized, Anversa "fabricated or falsified data in 31 published studies that should be retracted, officials at the institutions have concluded." Harvard has been fined $10 million by the federal government.  

Carolyn Johnson of the Washington Post quoted a California stem cell researcher:
"'This body of work has, for better or worse, been hugely influential,' said Eduardo Marb├ín, director of the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. 'Despite the fact that several prominent laboratories failed to confirm key findings, c-kit positive heart cells were rapidly translated to clinical testing in heart failure patients. … One can only hope that no patients have been placed at risk in clinical trials based upon fraudulent data.'"
Another California researcher, Benoit Bruneau, was quoted by the New York Times. 
"A couple of papers may be alarming, but 31 additional papers in question is almost unheard-of,' said Benoit Bruneau, associate director of cardiovascular research at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco. 'It is a lab’s almost entire body of work, and therefore almost an entire field of research, put into question.'"
Gina Kolata of the New York Times wrote, 
"Despite the troubling questions that had been raised about the stem cell work, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute began a clinical trial of injected stem cells for patients with heart failure.... 
"In the past few years, however, skeptical researchers moved on to other prospects for heart treatment. 'The field has backed off a lot,' (Jeffery) Molkentin (a professor at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute) said.
"Some scientists wondered how a questionable line of research persisted for so long. Maybe, Dr. Molkentin said, experts were just too timid to take a stand."
Some researchers have called for suspension of the $63 million clinical trial, including Deepak Srivastava, president of the Gladstone Institutes and president-elect of the International Society for Stem Cell Research.

Here are links to other coverage of the matter, which is been brewing for several years: The Niche, The Scientist, Medscape, Biospace and the  Harvard Crimson.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous11:22 AM

    Perhaps, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC), which is made by introducing multiple oncogenes to skin/adult cells to circumvent human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, would top all the stem cell frauds. Decades of molecular biology have led to our understanding that cancer is caused by expressing embryonic genes in adult cells. Why can iPSC be called stem cells, whereas the whole scientific field consents to the fact that such cells are cancer cells. However, iPSC was published in top scientific journals unbelievably quick, even ISSCR has been behind it, and the iPSC person Shinya Yamanaka even won 2012 Nobel Prize. So far, NIH, CIRM, and even DOD have doled out hundreds of millions of tax-payer’s money to such fraud. CIRM even issued multiple RFAs exclusively for iPSC, considering CIRM never issued any RFA exclusively for hESC of the Proposition, just show how deep the problem is.


Search This Blog