In January, Nature published two studies claiming to have developed a method to reprogram adult cells into stem cells, or cells capable differentiating into any other human cell type.
This week, Nature retracted both papers as a result of figure errors, plagiarized descriptions and failed replications of the study.
Published on January 30, the two papers described a cheap and easy process to turn mature human cells into stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) cells. Labs have been attempting to create STAP cells easily for some time, as their success would make future stem cell generation significantly simpler.
The excitement generated by the STAP papers was mostly due to the fact that mammalian cells have never been turned into young cells without the help of genetics. These papers published in January used physics rather than any genetic manipulations.
Haruko Obokata of the RIKEN research center in Japan led much of the research. When Obokata was approached about the failure of replicating her work, she agreed to an investigation by RIKEN. Often when separate laboratories cannot replicate scientific studies, the nature of the experiments, methods, conclusions and data come into question.
Following the RIKEN investigation, the institution found multiple errors and raised concerns in April.
According to a Nature editorial announcing the retractions, RIKEN found "inadequacies in data management, record-keeping and oversight. One author was found guilty of misconduct-a charge that Riken reaffirmed following an appeal."
On June 4 Obokata and the other authors of the papers agreed to a formal retraction by Nature. The journal itself says it must increase policing of papers for any inappropriate image manipulations, plagiarisms and inaccuracies. They conclude that the problems with the STAP papers would not have been detected earlier, but that they will increase their initiatives to highlight problems in analysis of research moving forward.
The problem with papers that are retracted is often sloppiness, says Nature. This sloppiness, whether in the analysis of the data or in inaccurate recording of the data, can lead to conclusions that seem highly significant but may not be at all. Biases in the data can result from sloppiness. Often unintended biases due to non-randomized experiments arise, or, sometimes, just due to bad intent.
The STAP paper retraction is one of Nature's largest and most controversial retractions in the last decade.
"We...need to put quality assurance and laboratory professionalism ever higher on our agendas, to ensure that the money entrusted by governments is not squandered, and that citizens' trust in science is not betrayed," says Nature, a journal perceived by many to be the gold-standard of peer-review publications.
