Pressure blamed for stem cell ills

PARADIGM changer” to “sloppy and irresponsible”. In just two months, two papers revealing a simple way to turn adult cells into embryonic-like stem cells went from being heralded as groundbreaking to being investigated over their credibility. Stem cell research is touted as the way to a medical revolution, “People deliberately ignore inconvenient data in order to support their likely erroneous conclusions” but all too often accusations of poor practice arise. To glean some insight into why, New Scientist asked 1000 stem cell researchers from around the world to answer an anonymous survey about the pressures of their work. More than 110 replied. Some admitted to faked results, others told of unethical behaviour from superiors, and several placed the blame on high-profile journals. Just over half believe stem cell research is under greater scrutiny than other fields. “It is because the implications for therapeutics are greater than in other areas,” said one researcher. Almost a fifth said this affects their work. Some said it made them more rigorous, while others said they feel forced to find clinical applications too soon. Sixteen per cent said they have felt pressure to submit a paper that was incomplete or contained unverified information. “There is a tremendous pressure to publish, in order to receive funding. Shortcuts are, therefore, not unusual,” said one respondent. “It happens when we know competitors are going to publish the same story,” admitted a principal investigator. Three people said they had felt pressure from peers or superiors to falsify data, or to do something they consider unethical, and five people said “yes” when asked if they or a colleague had ever falsified or augmented data that ended up in a published paper. “Sometimes one’s job is called into question,” said one professor, “and superiors have been known to try and force premature publication and take credit for findings... when they don’t even know the content of the work.” Misinterpretation of results was a common concern. “[People] deliberately ignore inconvenient data in order to support their likely erroneous conclusions,” said one assistant professor. The results echo a 2009 study that spanned all scientific fields, says Ivan Oransky, co-founder of website Retraction Watch. In that, 2 per cent admitted to falsification or fabrication, and about a third admitted to other questionable research practices. In the extra comments section of our survey, journals came in for criticism: “The review process has become a playground of promoting personal opinions, rather than evaluating the actual science,” said one assistant professor. A group leader said the refereeing process at top journals “often asks for over-elaborate, costly and time consuming experiments rather than ensuring the basic core finding is sound”. A spokesperson for Nature, which published the papers being scrutinised (doi.org/r3t; doi.org/ r3v), says: “The editors select research for publication on the basis of scientific significance, and each published paper undergoes robust, rigorous peer review.” Many researchers pinned blame on the press, saying it had overhyped the field, making stem cells seem like a cure-all. Thankfully, the consensus is that most stem cell research is accurate. “We must be careful not to… throw the baby out with the bath water,” said one scientist. The investigation into the work led by Haruko Obokata at the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan, continues. Co-author Charles Vacanti at Harvard Medical School has released a detailed guide for others to replicate it. He says the findings are too significant to disregard based on what he calls relatively minor errors or external pressures. “Over time, the science will speak for itself,” he says.  ■ See the full survey at  bit.ly/stemcellsurvey