Federal investigators say recently published research on the development of the urinary tract system, work done at the University of Pittsburgh, was almost jeopardized because of research misconduct by its lead author.
The urinary tract article in the journal Renal Physiology, published Feb. 15, 2015, is one of three reported to contain false data from a mouse study submitted by Kenneth Walker, a post-doctorate fellow who came to the Pitt pediatrics department and Children’s Hospital of UPMC in 2011. His area of interest is “investigating the impact of gene deletion on the lower urinary tract development and function,” according to Mr. Walker’s LinkedIn account. He no longer works at Pitt and could not be reached for comment.
The other researchers credited in the article still are employed at the university or at UPMC; the investigators did not question their work in a report on the matter.
A 2013 article in the online journal PLOS One and a second manuscript submitted to PLOS One were found to have the same false data in figures and text.
The information was manipulated to show results that weren’t there, the investigators said. Grant applications to the National Institutes of Health also contained the data, they said.
Mr. Walker’s co-authors discovered the suspect data, reported it and corrected it, according to Children’s researcher Dr. Carl Bates, who also teaches in the nephrology division of Pitt’s medical school.
“We initiated the investigation at the university and we’ve taken appropriate steps to rectify the data,” he said. “We cooperated entirely with the investigation. … I don’t envision any problems with the program.”
The Office of Research Integrity of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed notice Friday of its final action in the case, the second against a Pitt researcher within two years. The research had been supported with NIH funding.
In a voluntary settlement, Mr. Walker agreed to have his research supervised for three years, beginning April 14. He must make sure the research integrity office approves the plan for his supervision before he participates in any research funded by the U.S. Public Health Service, which falls under Health and Human Services. Institutions employing him must certify to the ORI that the data is based on “actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived” and that all reports accurately state the facts of the research.
He also must exclude himself for three years from serving on any advisory or peer-review committee. He also agreed to a retraction or correction of the 2013 and 2015 articles.
An HHS spokeswoman said the system worked as it should and the impact of misconduct is lessened when it’s found soon after publication, as it was in Mr. Walker’s case.
“There is no reason to believe that peer review is not working,” she said. “While instances of misconduct can be missed by the initial reviewers, the scientific community is now taking a more active role in scrutinizing manuscripts by linking to the original data, which makes it easier to detect misconduct.”
She said NIH funding is not jeopardized at the university because of the investigation. In general, she said, there have been more frequent findings of misconduct in recent years nationwide, attributing that to “more sophisticated tools for detecting misconduct.”
The previous Office of Research Integrity case concerning a Pitt researcher involved a study published in the July 2014 free-access journal Oncotarget.
Also first reported by the university, falsified figures in a mouse study using human prostate cancer cell lines were investigated and the study was retracted, with lead author Dong Xiao agreeing to a voluntary settlement similar to that in the Walker case. His three-year supervision period began Dec. 23, 2014. No longer employed at Pitt, Mr. Xiao could not be reached for comment.
Two researchers associated with one institution reprimanded within two years is not unusual, the HHS spokeswoman said. Pitt can issue its own sanctions against someone found guilty of misconduct. ORI’s findings follow researchers to whatever institutions they go to in the future, she added.
Ultimately the final decision about a retraction is up to the publisher, she said.
A spokeswoman for the American Physiological Society, which publishes Renal Physiology, said the society doesn’t comment on “perceived or actual ethical infractions with individuals, groups or organizations not directly involved with the matter.”
As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, the journal follows advice for cases of research and publication misconduct, including guidelines for corrections and retractions. However, as of Monday afternoon, no correction was noted on the 2015 online article.
Pitt spokesman Joe Miksch released a statement saying that although university policy is to keep investigations confidential, it reports “any questionable conduct in such matters, and takes very seriously allegations of research misconduct.”
Jill Daly: jdaly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1596.
First Published: May 10, 2016, 4:00 a.m.
