In June, a notice was posted on the journal Nature’s website, setting a new record in science. The paper that was retracted had been the most highly cited research paper to ever be withdrawn. This study, published in 2002 by Catherine Verfaillie and her colleagues, had been cited 4,482 times before its retraction.
The bone marrow cells described in the study were seen as an alternative to embryonic stem cells, with the potential to develop into any type of tissue without the need to destroy a human embryo. At the time, the U.S. government was grappling with the ethics of funding stem cell research, and Verfaillie’s findings were championed by those opposed to working on embryos.
The retraction of this paper sheds light on some fundamental issues in research and its reporting. There is often a focus on getting eye-catching papers with bold claims into top journals, leading to funding and media attention. However, many of these dramatic findings are difficult to replicate or turn out to be incorrect.
When such papers come under scrutiny, they are often defended vigorously. Research institutions and journals may delay correcting the scientific record, partly out of legal concerns. The reputations of scientists and their employers suffer when papers are retracted, creating a reluctance to address the issue promptly.
The retraction notice from Nature stated that the editors no longer had confidence in the reliability of the data. Concerns about this study had been raised as far back as 2006, when duplications of plots across Verfaillie’s papers were noted. Multiple examples of reused and manipulated images were found in papers published by Verfaillie and her team.
Investigations into the matter focused on whether there was deliberate data falsification, leading to findings of scientific misconduct against a junior researcher. However, the focus on intentional misconduct can be problematic, as errors due to rushed publishing can be just as misleading as fraud.
The University of Minnesota declined to investigate concerns about image manipulation in another Verfaillie paper, citing a policy that did not require investigations into research conducted seven or more years before allegations were made. This raises questions about the thoroughness of investigations and the pursuit of scientific integrity.
In 2019, a research integrity consultant reviewed Verfaillie’s work and raised concerns about newer papers. The failure to provide original images to address these concerns ultimately led to the retraction of the Nature paper. Verfaillie fought to keep the paper alive but reluctantly agreed to its retraction almost five years after the initial investigation.
The saga of Verfaillie’s paper highlights deeper issues with incentives in science that drive careers. Highly cited papers can lead to promotions and grants, diverting funding from potentially more impactful research. Science journalism also plays a role in perpetuating the focus on flashy findings over the accumulation of repeatable research.
Moving forward, there have been experiments with open peer review to improve transparency in publishing. The author suggests that the traditional scientific paper, set in stone at publication, is outdated in the Internet age. Embracing more dynamic ways of publishing research could enhance the scientific process.
In conclusion, the retraction of Verfaillie’s paper underscores the need to reevaluate the incentives driving scientific research and publishing. Prioritizing transparency, reproducibility, and a broader view of scientific progress can help mitigate issues like those seen in this case.