Winnipeg Free Press > Local > U of M research results fake

Local

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

U of M research results fake

University probe finds fraud, sanctions scientist

By: Jen Skerritt

4/08/2009 1:00 AM | Comments: 7

Fawzi Razem

Enlarge Image

Fawzi Razem

WINNIPEG – The University of Manitoba has sanctioned a former researcher after an internal investigation concluded he faked data and made up experiments that led to a seemingly groundbreaking study published in one of the world's most prestigious science journals.

The news that disgraced U of M plant science researcher Fawzi Razem committed the biggest sin in science comes eight months after the journal Nature retracted what was once considered a breakthrough study.

Razem, working in the lab of Prof. Robert Hill, claimed to have discovered a receptor for the major hormone linked to a plant's response to environmental stress. The receptor that has eluded scientists for two decades was identified in an article and featured in the editor's summary in the January 2006 edition of Nature, one of the world's most renowned international science journals.

The receptor was long sought after, as it could help plants better adapt to cold or drought.

Concerns about the research emerged last summer when a team of researchers from New Zealand couldn't replicate Razem's work -- a red flag that there could be serious problems with the original findings.

A December 2008 online edition of Nature said the study made "erroneous conclusions" and there is no evidence to support Razem's findings.

The university would not initially confirm if an internal investigation was underway.

That changed July 30 when the U of M issued a statement in a newsletter confirming that Razem had committed fraud.

"Specifically, the committee concluded that certain experiments claimed to have been conducted, in fact, were not, and that results were fabricated," the bulletin said. "This case is a very rare and isolated incident, and there are already safeguards in place to prevent such occurrences."

The statement said the U of M has implemented sanctions against Razem and that he will "never be recommended for an academic appointment of any kind at the university."

Razem resigned when the initial allegations surfaced.

The U of M determined the allegations warranted an in-depth investigation and struck a committee that consisted of the academic vice-president and three impartial faculty members. U of M officials could not be reached for comment over the weekend.

Experts say cases of academic fraud are rare and undermine the pillars of scientific research.

"It's a crime against other researchers," said Arthur Schafer, a U of M ethics professor. "It undermines the researchers at the university and the trust of the public and the integrity of the research."

Although few cases are so extreme, Schafer said there is a growing concern in the research community about pressure to "make a name" and garner lucrative corporate sponsors. Schafer said science is one of the few professions where staff have to snag grants to pay for their equipment and assistants, and there is increasing competition for research dollars.

"It's only in the last decade this has come to be a challenge," Schafer said, adding that universities should rely on governments, not corporations, to fund independent research.

In the December 2008 online edition of Nature, New Zealand scientists said there is "no evidence" to indicate the U of M discovered a receptor that can manipulate the major hormone linked to a plant's response to environmental stress. Their study found several inconsistencies.

jen.skerritt@freepress.mb.ca

 

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 4, 2009 B1

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article is currently rated an average of 5 out of 5 (3 votes).

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

7 Commentscomment icon

I have some questions:
- Why the U of M took so long for the investigation? This scandal started late 2007
- Why the U of M allowed him to resign instead of firing him?
- Why the U of M helped him to escape instead of punishing?
- Who paid the ticket for him to leave Canada?
- Did he get any money from U of M before escaping?
- How many other research papers from this guy?
- Who appointed and supported him as Assistant Professor? By the way according to the U of M data base he was not a researcher – he was Assistant Professor and he escaped (resigned) as Assistant Professor NOT as researcher.
If any body has any answer, please let me know

25 % of scientific images contain fakery

The US Office of research Integrity case-load involving falsified images is roughly 10-100 fold less than one would predict on suspected papers containing fake images.

From the ORI vol 17, no 1, pages 2

Journal “Audits” of Image Manipulation

The American Thoracic Society (ATS) has recently agreed with two other publishers in science and has publicly revealed the results of journal prescreening for image manipulation. ATS found, in manuscripts accepted by the American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Critical Care Medicine,

that “approximately 23% of images had undergone some alteration “including ‘erasure,’ ‘filling in,’ ‘splicing,’ and ‘cloning”.

Separately, the Journal of Cell Biology (JCB) and Blood had reported that 20-28% of accepted manuscript had signs of image manipulation. Representing the results of a self-audit by the community in the normal conduct of research.

Also, 1% of JCB’s accepted manuscripts had manipulations that look like “deliberate falsifications. [What is the the other 19-27 % image fakery Drs. playing stupid?]

The ORI case load involving falsified images is roughly 10-100 fold less than one would predict from the 1% suspect papers

Are the rejected manuscripts published elsewhere? The figures are only the visible evidence presented by the scientists.What about Cherry-picking the data, conflicts of interest in peer-review etc; the hidden aspects of science? How suspect are the hidden parts of science?

I guess the next course he will be teaching is "How to destroy your career 101" !

fishysmell, oh yeah for sure. A criminal conviction is not required. Razem lied about a material fact while on the job. He cannot be trusted again.

It is pretty much only police officers (on certain police forces) who can disgrace their employers with grossly unprofessional conduct and retain their jobs.

In any other job, there is an investigation and you are out.

Defending Razem for his fraud, fighting for a lesser penalty, would have reflected so poorly on his colleagues and employer, that other academics worldwide would shun them.

That is the difference between academics and gangsters.

I realize he resigned in disgrace, but really, was the U of M in no position to fire him for this?

Publish or perish run amok? It's easy to think he simply had delusions of grandeur but just as possible, he was desperate to gain tenure or otherwise secure his position in academia.

Fake's & Fraud's are all around us...hope he goes to trial!

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Poll

Would you pay more to supersize your garbage bin?

View Results