Post by goactc on Jul 19, 2014 12:49:43 GMT
www.optometry.co.uk/news-and-features/news/?article=6146
JULY 16 2014
Two controversial research papers by Japanese stem cell biologists were officially retracted by the journal Nature earlier this month.
The retractions follow months of controversy around the work in the international science press, and could jeopardise future research at the institute.
The research, which outlined a method for generating stem cells by exposing them to mechanical stress and bathing in acid, would have provided a cheap way of generating stem cells, potentially revolutionising the field of regenerative medicine.
An official investigation conducted by a committee at the RIKEN Institute in Japan, where the research was carried out, found that lead author Dr Haruko Obakata had committed scientific misconduct.
'Critical errors’
The points from an investigation of the research highlighted “several critical errors” which included incorrect labelling of figures, parts of the methods section being plagiarised, as well as other research teams being unable to replicate the findings.
The researchers involved maintain that the outcomes were correct. Professor Charles Vacanti, a tissue engineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in the US and co-author on the retracted papers, wrote on his lab’s website: “Although there has been no information that cast doubt on the existence of the stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cell phenomenon itself, I am concerned that the multiple errors that have been identified impair the credibility of the manuscript as a whole.”
A full statement was published in the same edition of Nature with the two retractions, which outlined the possible flaws in the editorial process and lessons learned. The statement reads: “Although editors and referees could not have detected the fatal faults in this work, the episode has further highlighted flaws in Nature’s procedures and in the procedures of institutions that publish with us.”
Future of the RIKEN CDB
The controversy has also threatened the future of the RIKEN Centre for Developmental Biology (CDB), where landmark research using stem cells to treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is underway. The reform committee at RIKEN, which investigated the misconduct, concluded that the CDB itself was part of the problem and recommended that it be overhauled, potentially being moved to a new institute.
It was also reported that following the retraction of the papers, Dr Masayo Takahashi, lead researcher on the landmark AMD trial, had tweeted that part of the research may be suspended.
However, this was later clarified by RIKEN, with a representative telling Bioscience Technology: “Essentially, she wanted to express her dissatisfaction with RIKEN’s handling of the issue.”
At the end of last month, a spokesperson for RIKEN Centre for Developmental Biology told OT that the AMD research was ongoing and that “the first transplant is expected to take place this summer or fall at the very earliest.”
When questioned about the outcome of the report by RIKEN’s reform committee, they confirmed: “at this time, there are no changes to the current research plan.”
JULY 16 2014
Two controversial research papers by Japanese stem cell biologists were officially retracted by the journal Nature earlier this month.
The retractions follow months of controversy around the work in the international science press, and could jeopardise future research at the institute.
The research, which outlined a method for generating stem cells by exposing them to mechanical stress and bathing in acid, would have provided a cheap way of generating stem cells, potentially revolutionising the field of regenerative medicine.
An official investigation conducted by a committee at the RIKEN Institute in Japan, where the research was carried out, found that lead author Dr Haruko Obakata had committed scientific misconduct.
'Critical errors’
The points from an investigation of the research highlighted “several critical errors” which included incorrect labelling of figures, parts of the methods section being plagiarised, as well as other research teams being unable to replicate the findings.
The researchers involved maintain that the outcomes were correct. Professor Charles Vacanti, a tissue engineer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in the US and co-author on the retracted papers, wrote on his lab’s website: “Although there has been no information that cast doubt on the existence of the stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cell phenomenon itself, I am concerned that the multiple errors that have been identified impair the credibility of the manuscript as a whole.”
A full statement was published in the same edition of Nature with the two retractions, which outlined the possible flaws in the editorial process and lessons learned. The statement reads: “Although editors and referees could not have detected the fatal faults in this work, the episode has further highlighted flaws in Nature’s procedures and in the procedures of institutions that publish with us.”
Future of the RIKEN CDB
The controversy has also threatened the future of the RIKEN Centre for Developmental Biology (CDB), where landmark research using stem cells to treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is underway. The reform committee at RIKEN, which investigated the misconduct, concluded that the CDB itself was part of the problem and recommended that it be overhauled, potentially being moved to a new institute.
It was also reported that following the retraction of the papers, Dr Masayo Takahashi, lead researcher on the landmark AMD trial, had tweeted that part of the research may be suspended.
However, this was later clarified by RIKEN, with a representative telling Bioscience Technology: “Essentially, she wanted to express her dissatisfaction with RIKEN’s handling of the issue.”
At the end of last month, a spokesperson for RIKEN Centre for Developmental Biology told OT that the AMD research was ongoing and that “the first transplant is expected to take place this summer or fall at the very earliest.”
When questioned about the outcome of the report by RIKEN’s reform committee, they confirmed: “at this time, there are no changes to the current research plan.”
