Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 10 September 2008 | Nature 455, 150 (2008) | doi:10.1038/455150b
News in Brief
Lancet retracts paper on stem-cell treatment
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
An example of the very worst type of clinical trial. Ignoring GCP, not seeking proper ethical approval and forging documents for starters. Stem cell research, just like every other clinical trial testing the safety and efficacy of a novel therapy, must follow the rules. Well done to the Lancet for retracting the paper.
It stretches imagination that the author does not consider investigational use of tissue engineered products as falling under ICH-GCP. Additionally, no one other than the Lancet, in a mildly worded editorial at the time of publication that also expressed acclaim for the success of this treatment, has questioned the lack of scientific rigour in the methodology or design of the study, much less the astoundingly positive results of treatment. The Lancet did the right thing, but should also evaluate an editorial and peer review process that was clouded by overenthusiasm with a glamorous new technology.
When will Cell retract its so-called "ground-breaking" but actually deception-embedding "landmark" stem cell paper on the discovery of iPS - the so-called "induced pluripotent stem" but actually incorrectly programmed stem cells? /// Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)
It is certainly good that the Austrian Academy of Sciences is investigating the matter and that the university is imposing sanctions against the PI. But what is questionable is why the department head is not considered to be culpable in this matter. Whatever happened to joint responsibility? "Honorary authorship" status seems to be a convenient one indeed. It allows one to bask in the collective glory and even take credit for discoveries when everything runs smoothly. But at the hint of trouble, its a get-out-of-jail pass.
I actually published an article "Honorary Author and Its Non-Writing Roles for Publication". It can be read FREE at http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2006V1N1A6_Authorship.htm OR http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2006V1N1A6_Authorship.pdf ------Shi V. Liu (SVL@logibio.com; http://im1.biz; http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1)