Renowned neuroscientist Marc Tessier-Lavigne announced Wednesday that several high-profile journal articles published under his authority were erroneous in the release of an external review of his scientific research. As a result, he announced his resignation as president of Stanford University. .
The committee drafted this review in response to allegations of scientific misconduct involving Dr. Tessier Lavigne. Five prominent biologists and neuroscientists, including Randy Shekman, 2013 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine, and Shirley Tillman, president of Princeton University from 2001 to 2013 was a member of The committee said there was no evidence that Dr. Tessier Lavigne deliberately falsified data or released such information to the public, looking at 12 academic papers.
However, the committee noted that “over the years, several members of Dr. Tessier Lavigne’s lab appear to have manipulated research data and deviated from accepted scientific practice.” He pointed out that there were multiple errors in the five papers written by the doctor. Leading or supervising research. In response, Dr. Tessier Lavigne retracted three of the five articles, demanded major revisions to two, and vowed to resign from the presidency.
“I am pleased that the committee concluded that I was not involved in any fraud or falsification of scientific data,” Dr. Tessier Lavigne said in a statement, adding: Be responsible for the work of lab members. ”
What was the suspicion?
In 2015, many publications were published on the website PubPeer regarding image data published in three papers (one in Cell, 1999 and two in Science, 2001) for which Dr. Tessier Lavigne was the lead author. Concerns have been raised. Concerns varied, pointing to what appeared to be digital editing or manipulation of image backgrounds, reproduction of certain images, and creation of composite images that obscured the purity of scientific data.
These concerns were revisited in 2022 by several media outlets, including Stanford University’s student newspaper, the Stanford Daily, adding further scrutiny to Dr. Tessier Lavigne’s research. These media outlets focused their attention on images from a dozen different papers that Dr. Tessier Lavigne worked on.Some images seemed to have little impact on the study results, while others seemed to. materially affected Investigation result.
As a result, the Stanford University Board of Trustees initiated an investigation into Dr. Tessier Lavigne’s scientific work and formed a five-member expert panel to examine the allegations.
Early 2023, The Stanford Daily published more suspicion In 2009, while working as an executive at the biotech company Genentech, Dr. Tessier Lavigne reportedly published a paper in the journal Nature containing false data. The Student Newspaper, citing unnamed sources, suggested that a research review board conducted an internal Genentech investigation into the 2009 paper and found evidence of data tampering. The Stanford Daily also suggested that Dr. Tessier Lavigne was aware of these issues but prevented them from making them public.
Dr. Tessier Lavigne has strongly denied the allegations.
Was there fraud?
After 50 meetings and the collection of 50,000 documents, a five-member expert panel released its findings on Wednesday. The report said that although there was evidence of image manipulation and methodological carelessness in each of the papers examined, Dr. Tessier Lavigne herself was not involved in any of these practices, and said she “didn’t know others were doing it.” He concluded that he did not “knowingly accept it”.
He was also acquitted on the most serious charge of falsifying data in a 2009 Nature paper. The committee noted that the study “lacked the rigor expected of a paper with such potential consequences,” and Dr. Tessier Lavigne could have been more outspoken about the paper’s shortcomings. However, it concluded that the allegations of fraud were false.
In the paper, the researchers claimed to have discovered a chain reaction of brain proteins, including one called death receptor 6, that contributes to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. If successful, the study promised to present new avenues for a better understanding and treatment of this disease.
“There was excitement that this might be a different way of thinking about the disease,” said Dr. Matthew Schrag, a neurologist at Vanderbilt University.
But further research, some of which was published by Dr. Tessier Lavigne’s lab, found that experiments highlighting the role of the DR6 chain reaction in Alzheimer’s disease did not prove what was claimed. . This was partly true and was due to unanticipated side effects of the inhibitors used in the experiments and impurities of the proteins used.
The panel of experts suggested that Dr. Tessier Lavigne could have made a direct correction or retraction instead of publishing a further paper disproving the findings of the 2009 paper. But the report, which was first published in the Stanford Daily based on testimony from mostly anonymous sources (some of whom the committee was unable to identify), alleged fraud in Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s lab. determined to be confused with scientific misconduct. In a 2009 paper.
Dr. Schrag, who discovered the likely duplicate images in his 2009 study and published them in February, said the study was simply not rigorous enough. “The quality of the research was not high,” said Dr. Schlag, stressing that he was talking about himself, not the university.
What is “image manipulation”?
Of the 12 papers reviewed by the expert panel, almost all were found to have involved “manipulation of research data.” According to the report, such manipulations constitute a series of acts, including digitally altering images, joining panels, using data from unrelated experiments, duplicating data, and digitally altering the appearance of proteins. . However, the committee acknowledged that some of the manipulation examples may have been inadvertent or may have been an attempt to “glorify” the results.
Mike Rosner, president of Image Data Integrity, a biomedical image manipulation consulting firm, screened accepted manuscripts for publication in the Journal of Cell Biology from 2002 to 2013. said he spent 12 years on He said he found about 25 percent of the papers “had something wrong.” Some actions violated our guidelines and had to be fixed before publication. In most cases, he said, the problems were inadvertent and did not affect the interpretation of the data. However, in about 1% of cases the paper had to be pulled out.
“A pattern is emerging that this is not as uncommon as we would like to believe,” Dr. Schlag said.
Is it because of “lab culture”?
Following the many cases of image manipulation, the panel decided to speak with postdoctoral researchers who had worked under Dr. Tessier Lavigne at various times at various institutions, including Stanford University and Genentech. became.
Many praised Dr. Tessier Lavigne for her intellectual acumen and commitment to scientific rigor, but many also described a lab culture that encourages good results and successful experiments. . They argue that the lab and Dr. Tessier Lavigne “rewarded the ‘winners’ (i.e., postdocs who were able to produce favorable results) and the ‘losers’ (i.e., incompetent or struggling postdocs).” They tend to be marginalized or neglected.” to generate such data),” the report said.
The committee determined that Dr. Tessier Lavigne did not want this move, but that it may have contributed to the high rate of data manipulation coming out of his lab.
Dr. Tessier Lavigne will step down as president on August 31, but will remain as professor of biology at Stanford University, telling students in an email: Also, I have always run my lab on trust. That is, I trusted my students and postdocs and believed that the data they presented to me was genuine and accurate. We will further strengthen our management in the future. ”
