Comments on: Another opaque notice from the JBC, for paper author says is correct and valid

By: Band Aid

Band Aid — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:21:59 +0000

Shocking. In figure http://www.science-fraud.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Pain12.jpg the last lanes in each image (65C) are actually duplications of the 5C bands. Easier to spot when looking at high resolution at http://www.jbc.org/content/280/19/18604/F3.large.jpg

By: vhedwig

vhedwig — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:17:10 +0000

So my friend has a new site, and I sent some images from Dr. Pain’s papers to her. It makes fro a pretty damning case…

http://www.science-fraud.org/?p=52

By: Conrad T Seitz MD

Conrad T Seitz MD — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:05:12 +0000

Agree w/ amw. “Scientific misconduct is just another form of criminality.” We can’t successfully control the problems of misconduct unless we treat confirmed misconduct as a type of criminality. Sending a letter to the editor usually doesn’t do the trick, as the editor has a motive to cover up in hopes that no one will notice. This is why we need ORI with teeth and fully staffed all over the world.
Experience in business has shown that adequate rules, adequately enforced, are necessary to control business fraud; the same is true in science. Despite high motives, some people will be corrupted by the available rewards, and they won’t be nice about it.

By: Michael Briggs

Michael Briggs — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 23:01:44 +0000

And if you look at Fig. 6C in the originally submitted version of the paper (http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2011/09/09/jbc.M111.288522.full.pdf+html) you will see that in addition to splicing, the band in lane 4 is identical to the band in lane 7. This does not seem to be naive cutting and pasting, it appears to be deliberate misrepresentation of the data.

By: Anonymous crystallographer

Anonymous crystallographer — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:56:41 +0000

Yeah, that was my first thought when I saw Figure 6B.

By: Robert Fagan (@RobFagan)

Robert Fagan (@RobFagan) — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:31:10 +0000

I’m in shock this morning. The quality of the manipulation in this paper is laughable – how the hell has this escaped notice for 4 years? Not only are the splice artefacts plainly visible, in most cases the borders of the cobbled together lanes don’t even line up – 1C is a beautiful example. My 6 year old nephew has better photoshop skills than this.

By: Band Aid

Band Aid — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:31:31 +0000

There are also duplicated bands in this figure here: http://www.jbc.org/content/280/19/18604/F3.large.jpg

By: amw

amw — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:18:30 +0000

One has to remember JBC’s handling of the Gopal Kundu case. They refused to bow to threats and pressure from senior Indian scientists and steadfastly retracted the paper.

I would place JBC in a much higher category in terms of integrity than most other journals (certainly above Nature who talk the talk but don’t actually follow their own highly publicised policies).

By: amw

amw — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:14:42 +0000

Just for clarity I’m referring to splice artefacts which is where the background of the gel suddenly changes in an artefactual way. There are also very thin white lines on most of these figures which I don’t quite understand but are not splice artefacts.

To me the problems are absolutely clear Fig. 1A (look at the top of the middle lane – clearly pasted on), 2B and the top panel of Fig. 6A . I’m not sure about Fig. 1B.

This lab has clearly been fabricating its gels for some time.

What is concerning is that neither the journal or the institution has commented on the wider problem, and one must assume they won’t unless encouraged to do so.

By: Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic — Wed, 11 Jul 2012 07:51:16 +0000

Yep, I see 1A, B and 6A, also B. Someone tell the journal.