评曹雪涛教授实验室论文涉嫌造假 近日Pubpeer网站曝光南开大学校长、中国工程院院士曹雪涛教授实验室里发表三十多篇涉嫌图片造假。这些论文发表于2003到2019年间,涉及曹教授所工作过的多个研究单位。我到Pubpeer网站查看的具体的指控涉嫌造假的证据,这些证据大致分为三类:免疫印迹条带的重复使用、流式细胞结果图的高度相似或重复使用、组化图的重复使用。做过实验的人都知道,免疫印迹、流式细胞仪以及组化的图片都是独一无二的,所以如果论文出现了同样的数据,很可能就有问题。在不同实验的结果里重复使用同一图片有两种可能,一是不小心用错了,二是故意造假。虽然我们不能看到作者当年是如何操作此事,但有些时候光凭文章所呈现的数据我们也能判断出是哪一种情况来。一般来说,如果是作者的粗心用重复了,那么重复使用的图会完全一样(虽然完全一样不一定意味着就是粗心所致,也可能是故意造假)。但如果重复使用的图有经过作者人为加工(比如PS)所导致的区别,那么这样的重复使属于故意造假的可能性极大。回到曹雪涛教授实验室的涉嫌造假论文里来,无论是重复使用的免疫印迹图、流式结果还是组化图,部分图片都有人为加工的痕迹,包括组化图截取不同视野、流式结果图里人为地复制粘贴细胞点、免疫印迹条带的背景调整等。所以,我个人认为在曹雪涛教授被指控的涉嫌造假的部分论文里,问题比较大。曹雪涛教授是中国工程院院士,南开大学校长。同时他还是中国免疫学会的秘书长,在他的带领下中国免疫学会在国际上的影响力越来越大,他的团队在免疫学领域也发表了大量的颇具影响力的学术论文。但贡献归贡献,一旦学术造假归学术造假。而且涉及学术造假的人的地位越高,这样的造假对学术生态的破坏就越大,也就越需要接受调查。所以对这次论文涉嫌造假一事,我个人认为相关部门(包括论文涉及的第二军医大学、浙江大学还有支持这些研究的机构)都需要进行独立的调查。为中国免疫学的旗帜性人物,也为中国这一领域的进步付出了很多努力的曹雪涛教授,如果在这次调查中能够以身作则地配合这个独立、公平、公正的调查,并承担自己该承担的责任,将会是对中国学术的一大贡献。 附:曹雪涛在Pubpeer上的回应全文:Dear Dr. Bik,
I'm writing to you in response to recent inquiries you posted with regard to mentioned studies conducted at the National Key Laboratory of Medical Immunology and Institute of Immunology at the Second Military Medical University, with me being the corresponding author.
I appreciate your interest in our work and your commitment to protecting the accuracy of scientific records and the integrity of research pursuit. They are of utmost importance to me all along as well. Upon being notified of your inquiries, I have made them our highest priority and immediately took steps to look into the concerns you raised with the team and collaborators and carefully re-examined our manuscripts and raw data and lab records. We’ll work with the relevant journal editorial office(s) immediately if our investigation indicates any risk to the highest degree of accuracy of the published records.
Based on our analyses up to this point (still ongoing) and additional feedback we received from colleagues and peers, I would like to add that I remain confident about the validity and strength of the scientific conclusions made in those publications and our work’s reproducibility. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for any lapse in supervision or laboratory leadership and the concerns you raised serve as a fresh reminder to me just how important my role and responsibility are as mentor, supervisor, and lab leader; and how I might have fallen short. I feel therefore very heavy-hearted and tremendously sorry, to my current and former students, my staff and colleagues, my peers, and the larger community. I most sincerely apologize for any oversight on my part and any inconvenience it might have caused. I’ll use this as an invaluable learning opportunity to do better not only in advancing science, but also in safeguarding the accuracy and integrity of science.
前往“发现”-“看一看”浏览“朋友在看”