丑闻|2011年诺奖得主Bruce Beutler的论文遭撤稿

欢迎点击「PaperRss」↑关注我们！

今天，发布在公众号Bioart的消息《诺奖得主Science论文遭撤稿——涉及多位华人科学家丨特别关注》诺奖得主Science论文遭撤稿——涉及多位华人科学家丨特别关注的消息让人震惊。德克萨斯西南医学中心教授Bruce Beutler（布鲁斯·博伊特勒）及其合作者发表在2014年在Science杂志上的题为“MAVS, cGAS, and endogenous retroviruses in T-independent B cell responses”的一文因为后续的数据重复问题被撤稿。该事件表明即使诺贝尔也难逃脱被撤稿的命运，科学容不得半点虚假或学术不端。详细情况请看刊登在《retraction watch》的详文：

Science retracts paper after Nobel laureate’s lab can’t replicate results

with 5 comments

 is retracting a 2014 paper from the lab of a Nobel winner after replication attempts failed to conclusively support the original results.

In January, Bruce Beutler, an immunologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and winner of the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, emailed Science editor-in-chief Jeremy Berg to report that attempts to replicate the findings in “MAVS, cGAS, and endogenous retroviruses in T-independent B cell responses” had weakened his confidence in original results. The paper had found that virus-like elements in the human genome play an important role in the immune system’s response to pathogens.

Although Beutler and several co-authors requested retraction right off the bat, the journal discovered that two co-authors disagreed, which Berg told us drew out the retraction process. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the journal waited for Beutler’s lab to perform another replication attempt. Those findings were inconclusive and the dissenting authors continued to push back against retraction.

Berg（Science杂志主编） told us:

The question is more nuanced than with many retractions. It’s not a question about whether the result is “right” or “wrong’ but about how robust it is.

If we had known that it was going to take as long as it did to reach a conclusion, we might have issued an expression of concern.

Finally, about a month ago, Science decided that the journal itself, rather than a subset of co-authors, would retract the paper.

Here’s the full notice, published today and attributed to Berg:

Bruce Beutler has informed Science that experiments performed in his laboratory have failed to reproduce clearly the foundational observations of the 2014 article, “MAVS, cGAS, and endogenous retroviruses in T-independent B cell responses.” In contrast to data presented (Figs. 1 and 3), he now finds that deficiency of MAVS and/or cGAS do not cause a robust decrease in type II T-independent B cell responses. At most, a decreased antibody response is observed in Stinggt/gt mice. Although some of the data shown in the paper may be correct, the core observations and conclusions are not. Beutler and a majority of coauthors have therefore requested retraction of the paper.

The editors nonetheless note that authors Ming Zeng and Xiaolei Shi stand by the findings of the paper. These authors do not agree to this retraction due to disagreement with the design of the reproduction experiments.

The editors have worked with the authors to determine the appropriate outcome and have decided retraction is appropriate in light of the lack of robustness of the main finding.

The paper has been cited 50 times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including eight citations since the end of January, the month when Beutler first asked for a retraction.

Zeng, the paper’s first author, did not respond to our questions. We were unable to find contact information for Shi, who was listed as a co-second author.

In a statement, UT Southwestern told us:

Dr. Beutler is fully committed to the integrity and transparency needed for the proper conduct of scientific work. He has therefore informed Science that certain experiments performed in his laboratory have failed to reproduce. Specifically, deficiency of MAVS and/or cGAS does not cause a robust decrease in type II T-independent B cell responses. 

The school also told us:

Dr. Beutler and his collaborators identified the problem with reproducibility, made multiple attempts to reproduce the data, and based on their results concluded retraction was the appropriate step. No outside labs were involved.

UT Southwestern added that it couldn’t comment on whether Zeng and Shi were still at the school:

As a matter of policy, UT Southwestern does not comment on personal information.

Waiting for clarity

Berg said Science allowed the replication attempt because it was “trying to help [the authors] resolve their differences to find a situation where everyone was comfortable with the retraction.” He said he doesn’t think anyone at Science suggested the idea, but that he and the journal were “supportive” of it.

Berg told us:

We were aware at the time there were three possible outcomes. One, a clear confirmation of results as published. Two, fairly clear evidence they weren’t [confirmed]. And a lot of room in the middle where things were pointed in the right direction but not enough to be clear.

The results ended up right in that “middle ground,” Berg said, where Beutler and the rest of the co-authors weren’t comfortable letting the paper stand, but where Zeng and Shi didn’t believe the results of the replication attempt justified retracting the paper.

Berg said he considered issuing an expression of concern (EoC) at several points, but didn’t because he thought the situation would be resolved sooner. Both in the weeks after receiving Beutler’s retraction request and in June, when the replication study results came in, Berg said:

We thought that things were moving forward so we didn’t issue an EoC.

Even in June, we did not expect that the process would continue as long as it did. Once the results came in, we solicited an expert opinion and then worked with the authors to see how they would respond to the findings. We did not expect that the process to come to a conclusion and agree on final language for the editorial retraction would take as long as it did.

The paper has been cited five times since June, when Science first received the replication study results.

Beutler shared the Nobel in 2011 for helping discover the proteins that recognize pathogens and activate the body’s immune response.

布鲁斯·博伊特勒百科介绍：

布鲁斯·博伊特勒

布鲁斯·博伊特勒（英语：Bruce Beutler，1957年12月29日－至今）美国免疫学家和遗传学家，出生于伊利诺伊州芝加哥。因发现如何激活先天免疫而与鲁斯兰·麦哲托夫和朱尔·A·奥夫曼分享2011年邵逸夫生命科学与医学奖。同年（2011年），博伊特勒连同朱尔斯·霍夫曼获诺贝尔生理学或医学奖一半奖项，以表扬他们“关于先天免疫机制激活的发现”，另一半奖项由瑞夫·史坦曼获得。 拉尔夫·斯坦曼（Ralph M. Steinman）于2011年9月30日因胰腺癌逝世，享年68岁。他个人获得了包括美国科学院和医学研究所在内授予他的许多荣誉。他是欧洲分子生物组织(EMBO)的外籍会员，美国医师协会和美国临床研究协会的会员。

著名荣誉如下：

诺贝尔生理学或医学奖(2011，与拉尔夫·斯坦曼和朱尔·A·奥夫曼分享)

邵逸夫生命科学与医学奖(2011，与朱尔·A·奥夫曼和Ruslan M. Medzhitov分享)

Will Rogers Institute年度研究奖 (2009)

Albany Medical Center Prize(2009，与Charles A. Dinarello和拉尔夫·斯坦曼分享)

因天生免疫研究获得Balzan Prize(2007，与朱尔·A·奥夫曼分享)

获得慕尼黑工业大学授予的名誉医学博士学位 (2007)

癌症研究机构颁发的William B. Coley Award(2006，与Shizuo Akira分享)

法国科学院授予的Gran Prix Charles-Leopold Mayer (2006)

德国Robert Koch基金会Robert Koch Prize(2004，与朱尔·A·奥夫曼和Shizuo Akira分享)

Institute for Scientific Information自2001年将他列入ISI highly cited researcher，标志着他成为免疫领域有影响力的人物。他也被Thomson-Reuters列为Citation Laureate。

      如果您觉得这篇文章不错，请转发到您的朋友圈吧！

( 免责声明： 本文中的部分信息援引自网络。本公众号发布的图文一切仅为分享交流，并不代表本公众号的观点。所有援引自网络的部分，其版权归原作者、原公号或原网站所有，如有涉及版权敬请及时告诉我们，定将及时删除或妥善处理。)

长按下面二维码，关注我们！觉得不错点个赞吧！