'Game-changing' Japan stem-cell study questioned

Hmmmm...

Here come the thumbs down but it is because it was a woman?

NHK made her "discovery" top news on its 7 p.,m. bulletin a while ago. The story took the angle that a humble young Japanese woman had long been shunned by the Western male dominated world of scientific research, when Nature rejected and severely criticized an earlier paper of hers. But now, Obokata, a maverick who wears a housewives cooking apron, had been vindicated!

Well, I guess now we'll hear how it all turns out. Not that NHK or the Japanese media will give it much play if the story doesn't turn out right.

This sounds awfully familiar. Wasn't there something similar a some time ago.

but it is because it was a woman?

I doubt it. The research center wants the publicity. It does not want the negative publicity an exposure of errors would bring, though.

We'll know more when they publish the protocol.

Vacanti says he has had no problem repeating the experiment and says he will let Obokata supply the protocol "to avoid any potential for variation that could lead to confusion".

http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738

It's kind of unbelievable at first since she did only used a weak acid for the cells. It's really low tech approach but as long as it works, nobody cares.I hope she can prove the doubters wrong.

"it is because it was a woman?"

No.

Proper headline:

Published paper gets peer review.

Published paper gets peer review.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the paper was peer reviewed before it was published.

I think that the media has got the wrong end of the stick about this research from the very beginning, hyped it up beyond all belief, misrepresented the data... and generally has been a perfect case study in why the modern media shouldn't be allowed to report on anything, especially anything scientific.

I think that the media has got the wrong end of the stick about this research from the very beginning, hyped it up beyond all belief, misrepresented the data

That is quite possibly true, as well. However, the questions being raised here are not about what the media reported, but about what was in the actual paper.

Typical media coverage without corroboration.

Does she claim she's deaf?

Gee, Japanese media hyping something up and then finding out there are issues? Never!

I find nothing sensational or wrong with the report here. That the institute is reviewing the methodology by the researchers does not prove that there was anything phony about their work. Nor does it prove that their work was faulty. We need to wait and see what the institute's findings are. That the institute is in effect investigating itself is evidence that it is an honest organization.

Hope she can prove them wrong, sick of hearing about all the frauds and liars lately.

I hope she can prove them wrong as well, but won't be surprised if she can't. And I wonder if every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be talking about her like they did a few weeks back if she is proven a fraud.

It seems that some people want to try to find out faults because a young woman did incredible research of stem cells no one could think before. Maybe some people still want to deny her new findings.

The story took the angle that a humble young Japanese woman had long been shunned by the Western male dominated world of scientific research

How can they say she was shunned, when:

"Japanese researcher Haruko Obokata and American partners"

But now, Obokata, a maverick who wears a housewives cooking apron, had been vindicated!

Yuck. Is she trying to be the most annoying "scientist" in the world?

can anyone read properly anymore? the data is "unassailable," so that is not the problem. the problem is that she might have used "erroneous image data." so what's with all the "fraud and phony" comments?

And I wonder if every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be talking about her like they did a few weeks back if she is proven a fraud.

What exactly are you trying to say here?

News reporting this morning that there is a mix-up in the photographs published in Nature. There were 10,000 photos originally, and one was printed twice. Then there is the Harvard professor whose reputation is also on the line (a man, so there will be action). He has already filed the correct photos with Nature for replacement.

I find it immensely disappointing when such a discovery like this is bogged down by the unnecessary sensationalism both propelled by media and ignorant people.

Ms. Haruko Obokata seemingly does not look like a person who wold forge scientific data for a fleeting fame. Hopefully, it’d just a minor mistake in the paper, and the process to produce STAP cells is still sound and replicable.

That said, Japanese media outlets may need to re-examine their methods to report news. ( too much hype and too little validations)

too much hype and too little validations)

AFAIK the media were just reporting what they were told at the press conference at the Rikken Center. Are we now only going to require 'qualified' people to report the news? That would mean that only rocket scientists could have reported on the moon landing.

It is too early to make a judgement call. Let's wait review the findings and announce the results (which will be published in the media). Too many people wanting to see too many other people's heads on sticks.

News reporting this morning that there is a mix-up in the photographs published in Nature. There were 10,000 photos originally, and one was printed twice.

Correct. So far no one is saying the the results are not true, just that there was an error in the images used.

One of the problems is that the paper published is a bit shoddy in it's presentation of certain images and graphs, but the main problem is that of the ten prominent stem-cell scientists who tried to replicate her experiment they all failed. Being able to duplicate experiments is what proves they are real - so far only Wakayama has been able to do so, but he was by himself. Hmmm, I hope this doesn't turn into another case of Japanese lying.

This Nature article gives a lot more details; http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738

There seems to be a mix up in photographs and graphs but the data itself could still be okay. This is why there is peer review. Just because something is under review doesn't mean the party is guilty of something.

I hope she can prove them wrong as well, but won't be surprised if she can't. And I wonder if every Tom, Dick, and >Harry will be talking about her like they did a few weeks back if she is proven a fraud.

And I wonder if you would take comments back too? Or if you would be surprised if she was proven to be telling the truth.

Not mentioned in the article is that 10 prominent stem-cell scientists were unable to reproduce the results. Several scientists had contacted one or more authors for protocol details and got no response.

Also, the figure "mix ups" were found in 3 papers:

In the 2011 paper, on which Obokata is first author, a figure showing bars meant to prove the presence of a certain stem-cell marker appears to have been inverted and then used to show the presence of a different stem-cell marker. A part of that same image appears in a different figure indicating yet another stem-cell marker. The paper contains another apparent unrelated duplication.

The problems in the two recent Nature papers, on both of which Obokata is a corresponding author, also relate to images. In one paper, one of the sections in a genomic analysis in the first figure appears to be spliced in. In the other paper, images of two placentas meant to be from different experiments look strikingly similar.

http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20140218

If they were so careless handling the data, how careless were they when doing the actual experiment? How can their work be taken seriously? But I still think we should just wait and see...

Ms. Haruko Obokata seemingly does not look like a person who wold forge scientific data for a fleeting fame.

I'm curious, what do such people look like?

I hope this doesn't turn into another case of Japanese lying.

Again, what are these kinds of comments supposed to mean?

The Japanese media ultra-hype on STAP cell discovery was incredibly worrisome. Case in point, for days, the headlines with photos related to STAP cells research done by Ms. Haruko Obokata went on and on over all the major newspapers and news agencies - Yomiuri, Sankei, Mainichi, Asahi, JiJi. Kyodo ..., you name it. There was no exception as if Ms. Haruko Obokata is the best thing since sliced bread. (I don’t mean to discredit her and her work). On the contrast, American media coverage on the same discovery done by Dr. Charles Vacanti was, let’s say, very moderate.

Any experienced medical researchers in the world would be able to tell you that something that may work on the laboratory mice are, in fact, far away from working on human, and in majority cases, they simply do not. But the Japanese media outles (TV stations and Newspapers) collectively ignored the common sense.

slumdogFEB. 19, 2014 - 11:24AM JST I hope this doesn't turn into another case of Japanese lying. Again, what are these kinds of comments supposed to mean?

A couple of meanings. One is there is an inherent culture of 'lying' or 'tatemae' in Japanese culture which emphasises hiding information or deceiving others. The other (probably related) reason for this comment is that there have been a number of recent examples of institutionalised dishonesty in the news recently (or for a long time in fact) - e.g. labelling incident, deaf composer, Novaris pharmaceutical and the list goes on.

The costly fallout of tatemae and Japan’s culture of deceit http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2011/11/01/issues/the-costly-fallout-of-tatemae-and-japans-culture-of-deceit/

Alas, it would appear that there is some other than "an error in the images used," according to this informal peer forum https://pubpeer.com/publications/8B755710BADFE6FB0A848A44B70F7D#fb6102 where someone has manipulated the contrast and colour of figure 1 (part i, bottom right) of one of the two Nature papers. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/abs/nature12968.html

Was it another case of sensationalist media jumping on something too fast? The press rarely gets science reporting right.

One is there is an inherent culture of 'lying' or 'tatemae' in Japanese culture which emphasises hiding information or deceiving others.

That is not what the word means.

The other (probably related) reason for this comment is that there have been a number of recent examples of institutionalised dishonesty in the news recently (or for a long time in fact) - e.g. labelling incident, deaf composer, Novaris pharmaceutical and the list goes on.

I have huge problems with your seemingly asserting that this is a uniquely Japanese phenomenon. It is not.

There's a quite lively blog on attempts to reproduce Obokata's results from labs all around the world here:

http://www.ipscell.com/stap-new-data/

Comments from the blog Timtak mentioned:

I agree that lane 3 was clearly spliced in. It is difficult to imagine how one can splicing in a lane in the middle of a blot by accident.

It is disconcerting that the only blot that the authors choose to display in the article itself has an undeclared splice. This most certainly should not happen in 2014, especially in a field that has seen too many high-profile instances of misconduct and/or sloppiness.

and:

If the linked image is indeed Figure 1i, it does certainly look as if lane 3 was spliced in. I am under the impression that the correct procedure where two or more images are shown side by side is to leave a small gap. The authors do not appear to have followed the correct publication procedure here. A response from the authors would be welcome.

Ouch!

If the linked image is indeed Figure 1i, it does certainly look as if lane 3 was spliced in. I am under the impression that the correct procedure where two or more images are shown side by side is to leave a small gap. The authors do not appear to have followed the correct publication procedure here. A response from the authors would be welcome. Ouch!

Fuel for teaching my academic (Japanese EAP) students the importance of following academic procedures very carefully.

slumdog: "What exactly are you trying to say here?"

Exactly what I said. Everyone was talking about this woman and her accomplishments a couple of weeks back. Will they still talk about her if the fraud rumors are true? Not all that tought to understand.

igloobuyer said: Being able to duplicate experiments is what proves they are real - so far only Wakayama has been able to do so, but he was by himself. Hmmm, I hope this doesn't turn into another case of Japanese lying.

You forgot about Charles Vacanti.

Vacanti says he has had no problem repeating the experiment...

Now, why would Vacanti be lying? It was Vacanti that originally discovered spore-like stem cells and asked Obokata to look in to them.

Obokata worked with top stem cell scientists to show rigorously that these cells were triggered to return to a stem cell-like state by an environmental stress, such as being placed for 30 minutes in a mild acid bath. They submitted the first paper to a journal in April 2012, but it was rejected. Over the intervening year and a half, they continued to answer questions.

Since the exact protocol they used hasn't been published yet, it's too early to call this another Hwang Woo-suk.

House Atreides

You forgot about Charles Vacanti.

You're right.

Since the exact protocol they used hasn't been published yet, it's too early to call this another Hwang Woo-suk.

Indeed, or perhaps you mean a 'Shinichi Fujimura' since Hwang Woo-suk is Korean not Japanese. Or Akio Sugino, Kazunari Taira etc.

I have huge problems with your seemingly asserting that this is a uniquely Japanese phenomenon. It is not.

Indeed it is not a uniquely Japanese problem, but working in the sciences and following the situation closely, I'd guess that it might be more prominent here. http://retractionwatch.com/ reports on retractions, like the name of the website indicates. Retractrions are scientific papers that passed peer review (Obokata's paper is in Nature and has passed a very rigorous peer review), but were later found to have grave errors, often intentional, and thus the publication was "cancelled" after-the-fact, i.e. retracted.

The most famous case is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal, see also the book "Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World", it reads like a thriller. A Japanese researcher (Yoshitaka Fujii) holds the questionable honour of having most papers retracted. One of the most famous current cases is that of Shigeaki Kato (I noticed two of his papers retracted last week from PNAS, another prestigious journal, but Univ. of Tokyo after their investigation recommended that over 40 papers be retracted, which basically means the dude's entire career is a fraud).

More media sensationalism. Next they'll be claiming that she's actually not even a woman and her research was actually conducted by a blind, ghost-scientist.

slumdogFEB. 19, 2014 - 12:17PM JST One is there is an inherent culture of 'lying' or 'tatemae' in Japanese culture which emphasises hiding information or deceiving others. That is not what the word means.

My interpretation is pretty basic I admit, but how would you define 'tatemae' without including 'deception' and deliberate 'lying'. I am not saying this aspect of Japanese culture is 'bad' per se, just that it can cause serious problems, especially in the International community who do not accept any dishonesty.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2011/11/01/issues/the-costly-fallout-of-tatemae-and-japans-culture-of-deceit/

I do believe that it is not game changing but cell changing. No games were changed

I knew there was something fishy going on the moment NHK referred to this female scientist as, "Japan's Marie Curie!" Ha! I kid! (And anything's better than "Japan's Beethoven," I guess.)

As for the "questioning," sounds like the community is simply allowing its scientists to do their job. Let's withhold judgement until the new results come in...

Indeed it is not a uniquely Japanese problem, but working in the sciences and following the situation closely, I'd guess that it might be more prominent here. http://retractionwatch.com/ reports on retractions, like the name of the website indicates.

But looking at that sites list of retractions by country, Japan has less retractions than Germany or China which have a similar output in terms of total publications. About the same as the UK. So that would indicate its not more prominent here.

davestrousersFEB. 19, 2014 - 02:08PM JST Indeed it is not a uniquely Japanese problem, but working in the sciences and following the situation closely, I'd guess that it might be more prominent here. http://retractionwatch.com/ reports on retractions, like the name of the website indicates. But looking at that sites list of retractions by country, Japan has less retractions than Germany or China which have a similar output in terms of total publications. About the same as the UK. So that would indicate its not more prominent here.

Actually, according to this graph, Japan has the third highest rate of fraudulent scientific papers after US, China, and Korea and higher than the world average.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/files/retractions2.JPG

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/11/us_scientists_more_prone_to_fa_1.html

Actually, according to this graph, Japan has the third highest rate of fraudulent scientific papers after US, China, and Korea and higher than the world average.

No, it says that Japan is the joint third highest (with the US), after India, China, South Korea. That's in a table of seven countries. Again not much evidence for being particularly prominent.

igloobuyer said: Indeed, or perhaps you mean a 'Shinichi Fujimura' since Hwang Woo-suk is Korean not Japanese.

Not at all. Hwang conducted research on stem cells just like Obokata.

In February 2004, Hwang and his team announced that they had successfully created an embryonic stem cell with the somatic cell nuclear transfer method, and published their paper in the March 12 issue of Science.

Hwang published his findings in Science, Obokata in Nature. Hwang claimed he created pluripotent cells just like Obokata. Hwang worked with US researcher Gerald Schatten, Obokata with Charles Vacanti.

And the issues that cropped up are almost identical to what is happening now. There were issues with duplicated photographs. There were issues with not being able to replicate Hwang's work.

It just remains to be seen whether it ends the same way although I see nothing to suggest at this stage that it will. We'll know more when Obokata releases the exact protocol she used.

Exactly what I said. Everyone was talking about this woman and her accomplishments a couple of weeks back. Will they still talk about her if the fraud rumors are true? Not all that tought to understand.

Actually, it is 'tought' to understand. What is the purpose of your question? Why do you think it is somehow bad for people to be interested in the success of someone? Why do I get the distinct sense of 'glee' in your question? Why does that kind of 'Ha, ha gotcha!' sentiment that seems to emanate from your question?

If the research paper turns out to be flawed, it turns out to be flawed. However, I am not impressed with the attempts of some to make this an indictment of Japanese character in general.

Actually, it says that Japan is the joint fourth highest (with the US), after India, China and South Korea. I usually don't bother with such details, but since we're dealing with data accuracy ...

Anyway, I agree that it is not a particularly prominent Japanese trait.

I do think there is something unhealthy about the level of competitiveness in science today.

slumdogFeb. 19, 2014 - 08:38AM JST

I think that the media has got the wrong end of the stick about this research from the very beginning, hyped it up beyond all belief, misrepresented the data

That is quite possibly true, as well. However, the questions being raised here are not about what the media reported, but about what was in the actual paper.

Actually this is all about the media covering their collective backsides. They promised a game-changer and have been informed by numerous sources that they misrepresented this data so awfully that the public now has a completely warped idea of what it means.

Their response? Report on the national research institute convening a panel to further investigate and refine this technique as if it was the start of the inquisition. It isn't. If anything this further interest is both positive and constructive. It is just a sign that the research is a promising start in a new direction... but not the game changer the media made it out to be.

this is all about the media covering their collective backsides.

I disagree. This is just about the media reporting what Rikken Center announced both before and now.

have been informed by numerous sources that they misrepresented this data

It is not the media reacting. It is the Rikken Center.

but not the game changer the media made it out to be.

The media quoted experts in the field whose opinions were that it was 'game changing' and revolutionary. It is natural that they would be quoted.

I see nothing wrong with the media reporting about science and technology. It stimulates interest, which is something that the fields could use more of.

Might be the Rikken Center covering their backside.

If the data and conclusions are flawed, it would come out sooner or later, and it would affect the Rikken Center's reputation.

They must have had a valid concern to start this investigation. If they can clarify everything, great; but if fraud is discovered, it's better for the Center to confront it head on.

Frungy said: It is just a sign that the research is a promising start in a new direction... but not the game changer the media made it out to be.

The real game changer happened when Shinya Yamanaka discovered iPS cells in 2006. STAP cells are interesting but not all that 'game changing' in light of Yamanaka's Nobel Prize winning discovery.

The real game changer happened when Shinya Yamanaka discovered iPS cells in 2006. STAP cells are interesting but not all that 'game changing' in light of Yamanaka's Nobel Prize winning discovery.

Actually, the latest research, if proven accurate, has the potential to overshadow Yamanaka's achievement. Ask Mr. Google.

Was it another case of sensationalist media jumping on something too fast? The press rarely gets science reporting right.

Hima, it's not the media's fault for knowing less than the reviewers and editors of Nature, the holy grail of scientific publication. In fact, the image goof was pointed out by a reader in the field. If there's any guilt in the media, it's for overplaying the problem with the paper, which seems more of a procedural goof than anything else.

Being an editor for medical papers written in English by Japanese researchers, I have to point out that figures, tables, etc. are sometimes misplaced or entered incorrectly. Once some of my colleagues find out that this has happened, they usually panic and ask me to help them write letters of explanation and/or proper captions if needed. One fellow realized a mistake SEVEN YEARS after his paper was published, but apparently no one noticed but him. Which leaves the real problem of mistakes to high file research articles as in this case. Whatever the reason, any work of this import should be replicated a few times to ensure rigor and stability. I hope that what they have done is true and as easy to do as they say it is.

I hope things work out and everything is on the up and up, but stem cell researchers in East Asia seem to have problems with scientific procedure/protocol. WTF?

Just for the record: Articles published in Nature are reviewed. Here is the relevant section of Nature's instructions for authors: Once the decision has been made to peer-review the paper, the choice of referees is made by the editor who has been assigned the manuscript, who will be handling other papers in the same field, in consultation with editors handling submissions in related fields when necessary. Most papers are sent to two or three referees, but some are sent to more or, occasionally, just to one. Referees are chosen for the following reasons: • independence from the authors and their institutions • ability to evaluate the technical aspects of the paper fully and fairly • currently or recently assessing related submissions • availability to assess the manuscript within the requested time.

Wow so they didn't find the fountain of youth after all!

I totally believe in stem cell. Here at a hospital in Orlando,fla, a guy had heart problems,they used stem cells.

If it ain't reproducible, then it ain't science...

Hima, it's not the media's fault for knowing less than the reviewers and editors of Nature, the holy grail of scientific publication.

Hi Nessie. Yes, I agree. I was referring to the hub-bub surrounding the discovery in the Japanese media before the work has been reproduced anywhere else, not the issue with the figures in the paper.