4. Opinion: In January 2014, a paper published in Nature entitled, “Stimulus-tri

Question

4. Opinion: In January 2014, a paper published in Nature entitled, “Stimulus-triggered fate conversion of somatic cells into pluripotency” reported the ability to convert adult stem cells into embryonic-like stem cells using a technique called stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency, or STAP. The STAP technique required that adult cells be subjected to an acid shock as an extreme external stressor and surviving cells would recover and convert to a stem cell-like state. Then, the cells could be differentiated into a variety of cell types. These STAP stem cells appeared to have the potential to revolutionize stem cell research while promoting a means of obtaining embryonic-like stem cells without the ethical and moral implications of using human embryos. However, in the weeks that followed the publication, other qualified researchers found that they could not replicate the results based on the methods outlined in the paper and skeptics demanded to see more experimental details. When RIKEN released more detailed information on the study’s methods, there were several inconsistencies found between the original methods and the newly released ones. By September 2015, after months of controversy, which lead to one collaborator’s suicide and the restructuring of the RIKEN Institute, first author Dr. Haruko Obokata was found guilty of scientific misconduct and the STAP phenomenon was definitively shown to be not real and the result of contamination and poor laboratory technique.

a. Why do the inconsistencies found within the paper lead to the discrediting of the overall technique? Some of the figures used in the paper had been created previously by one of its coauthors and published elsewhere. If the figure is the property of one of the involved authors, if it is not referenced as previously published, is it still plagiarism?

b. As a result of the controversy surrounding this paper, RIKEN was restructured, Dr. Obokata and others were dismissed or reprimanded, and a collaborator committed suicide. In the field of academia and industry, the phrase “Publish or Perish” is often used to describe the need to constantly produce manuscripts, grants and journal articles to remain relevant and avoid being “scooped” by other researchers. Do you think that the pressure from that phrase may have influenced the decision to push forward with the fraudulent data? In your opinion, do you think that saying is too harsh on writers or is a fact that comes with the job?

                c. Imagine you had been a member of the research team and earned your graduate degree based on your written dissertation of this research. Do you think the degree is still valid?
               

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/acid-shock-converts-adult-cells-to-stem-cells/81249434/?kwrd=STAP
http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/misconduct-found-in-acid-bath-stem-cellstudy/81249691?kwrd=STAP
http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/final-nail-in-stress-induced-stem-cells-coffin/81251771/

Explanation / Answer

a. Researchers publishing any kind or research data must provide enough information regarding the requirements and the methods used so as to make the data reproducible, which is a part of publication ethics. Data which cannot be reproduced using the given details even with repeated attempts can be termed falsified data, thus severely affecting the validity of the publication. In the given case, though some of the inconsistencies found in the papers were mere errors, some of the data was found to be plain incorrect, which could not be overlooked, discrediting the entire technique.some figures used in the paper had been previously published elsewhere, and these figures were not appropriately referenced. This is a case of self-plagiarism(also known as recycling fraud), where the author has not referenced their own data, published previously.

b. 'Publish or perish', is infact the harsh reality of research and recognition of research. As said in the question, it is, unfortunately, a fact that comes with the job. Nowadays, information spreads fast, and researchers around the world are frequently working on the same research problem. In such cases, it ultimately boils down to 'who publishes first', because a research publication is the only way of ensuring recognition for the said research work. Further, researchers are graded not just by their paper or the number of papers, but also by the citations that their papers receive, and this is where 'publishing first' again becomes very important. All the above facts certainly add to the stress of publishing data, and it is certainly possible that this harsh reality led to the decision of pushing forward fraudulent data.

c. Whether the graduate degree obtained in the said circumstances is valid or not is debatable. In any dissertation, the data accumulated by the researcher/student is as much important as being able to defend the methods used and decisions taken in front of an examiner. Further, it is necessary to find out if the student in question was complicit in the decision of publishing fraudulent data. It is possible that he/she had nothing to do with the interpretation of the results obtained in the lab. That being said, the degree might still be termed valid.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 4
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.