A controversy still rages over a research paper of a cell biologist which was withdrawn from an international peer-review journal on charges of "scientific misconduct" but given a clean chit by a panel of eminent scientists. The clean chit has been challenged by an academic watchdog. In the eye of the controversy is Gopal Kundu, an award winning cell biologist at the Pune-based National Centre for Cell Sciences (NCCS), whose research paper was withdrawn by the Journal of Biological Chemistry in February after it found that the data used in it was reproduced from a previously published paper.
The journal retracted the paper in February 2007 after an investigation prompted by an anonymous email. The authors were told that the paper contained "data that was reproduced without citation and with different labelling" from a paper the same group had published in 2004 (Rangaswami, H., Bulbule, A. & Kundu, G. C. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 38921–38935; 2004). Journal editors claimed the errors amounted to "deliberate misrepresentation".
Kundu and his team deny this, saying that both papers described similar experiments run on very similar cell types. "The apparent similarity between two loading control blots — out of the 100 or so blots in the papers — did not affect the conclusions in any way," adds first author Hema Rangaswami, now a postdoc at the University of California in San Diego. "We feel JBC's decision to withdraw our paper was totally unfair." But Shelagh Ferguson-Miller, chair of the publications committee for the journal's publisher, says that it does not plan to reconsider the paper's withdrawal.
A seven-member committee, set up by the Department of Biotechnology, which oversees the NCCS, appears to back up Rangaswami's claims. In its 30 May report, the committee said the allegations were baseless. "Our detailed investigation shows there was no manipulation," says Govindarajan Padmanabhan, chairman of the committee. He adds that the journal did not analyse the researchers' raw data, but instead relied on image analysis of published figures. Padmanabhan says the committee plans to appeal to the journal to rescind the withdrawal.
But the SSV claims its own findings, released on 28 April, suggested that the group fabricated images in the second paper from blots in the first paper. Sohan Modak, a former member of the centre's governing council and whose complaint launched the SSV investigation, says he remains convinced the images are the same.
The jury may still be still out, but Kundu has already paid a price. His nomination to the fellowship of the Indian National Science Academy has been held up. And Rangaswami's PhD hangs in the balance: she has not yet been called to defend her thesis at Pune University.
The jury may still be still out, but Kundu has already paid a price. His nomination to the fellowship of the Indian National Science Academy has been held up. And Rangaswami's PhD hangs in the balance: she has not yet been called to defend her thesis at Pune University.
Is n't there something fishy about so much noise about Gopal kundu controversy. Is there any possibility that JBC made the decision of retraction of kund's paper in hurry. Is this the price, Gopal kundu and his student Rangaswami paying because of being Indian !!!! Truth needs to come out, whatever it is ??????
1 comment:
i think they should reevaluate the raw data and then come to any decision with solid reasons for not accepting the paper in JBC. it may be unfair to be rejected like this. i do admit some problems are there for indian scientists to get their papers published in international journal.
Post a Comment