Corrections Issued for Papers by Dana-Farber Researchers

Several corrections have been made to study reports written by researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute since errors in these and other papers were the topic of controversy last month.¹

The errors were highlighted in a post on For Better Science written by molecular biologist Sholto David, PhD. Dr David suggested that Dana-Farber researchers may have falsified data in more than 50 papers by manipulating images.

Dana-Farber’s research integrity officer, Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, said it was not clear whether the errors were the result of scientific misconduct.² However, Dana-Farber pledged to investigate the issues, request retractions for 6 of the articles, make corrections to another 31, and look into the errors in 1 paper.^2,3

A Dana-Farber spokesperson declined to provide a list of these papers, but corrections and other editorial notes have been posted on the web pages for 6 articles thus far.

On February 16, Clinical Cancer Research issued corrections for 3 articles, including 2 on Waldenström macroglobulinemia and 1 on multiple myeloma.^4,5,6

Two of the corrections describe duplication of images, and 1 of these corrections notes that data for a disputed figure are available from the article’s corresponding author.^4,5 The third correction describes a mismatch in the number of lanes in Western blots but does not provide an explanation for the discrepancy.⁶

Two Nature journals have also addressed errors identified by Dr David.^7,8 For an article on multiple myeloma, published in Nature Medicine, a January 25 correction notes that 3 pairs of micrographs have been amended to correct overlapping areas.⁷

An article on plasma cell differentiation published in Nature Immunology now includes an editor’s note, posted on January 30, indicating that issues raised about figures are currently under investigation.⁸

A paper on melanoma, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, now includes 2 editorial notes.⁹ An erratum published on February 1 notes “inadvertent duplication” of a figure panel and indicates that the authors have provided a corrected image and updated figure. However, on February 23, the journal released an additional expression of concern, indicating that the paper was under review at the authors’ institution.

“Until the investigation is complete, readers may wish to interpret the findings presented with caution,” the note advises.

This article originally appeared on Cancer Therapy Advisor