Several papers have been retracted lately because they invovled fictitious data, fictitious study subjects, or the willful suppression of data. My previous posts on the importance of "smaller" ethical lapses and my own request for the retraction of an article for failures to comply with editorial policy, and local and national guidelines emphasize that fraud is not the only justification for retraction. Several failures - the type that might be considered "smaller" sensu the Scientific American editorial - led the American Journal of Bioethics to announce a retraction today:
"For example, Dr. Hwang was found to have used a far greater number of oocytes than originally claimed in the Science article. The KNBB committee also found that a number of egg donors suffered side effects from the oocyte donation process, and concluded that the oocyte donors were neither given sufficient information about the risks of donation nor were they asked to sign the consent forms approved by the Institutional Review Board.
It now appears likely that the oocyte and somatic cell donation consent procedures described by Hyun and Jung, which, they report, were developed through what they described as close collaboration with Dr. Hwang and his team, were not used for donor screening and enrollment in the research that gave rise to the now discredited Science paper (Hwang et al. 2005). Neither Dr. Hyun nor Dr. Jung have been accused of any misconduct with respect to the contents of this paper, but the Editors of The American Journal of Bioethics nevertheless believe that a retraction of their manuscript is warranted. Both authors have agreed to a retraction."
Failure to abide by approved protocols, unanticipated adverse effects not reported in the publication, and using quantities of materials in excess of those approved in protocols and reported in a publication are all examples of "smaller" ethical lapses mentioned in the editorial statement.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment