SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A surgeon who moved to Russia after being fired from a Swedish hospital has lost his Russian Science Foundation grant, following the retraction of a Nature Communications paper:
After Paolo Macchiarini's star fell in Sweden, the Italian surgeon still had a place to shine: Russia. The Karolinska Institute (KI) in Stockholm fired him in March 2016 for multiple ethical violations, including "breach of KI's fundamental values" and "scientific negligence." But Russia had long showered Macchiarini with funding and opportunities to perform his experimental surgeries to implant artificial tracheas, and it allowed him to stay. Now, a year later, his Russian refuge has ended as well.
On 30 March, it became clear that the Russian Science Foundation (RSF) would not renew its funding for Macchiarini's work, which now focuses on the esophagus rather than the trachea. The decision came 9 days after Nature Communications retracted a paper by Macchiarini [open, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15077] [DX] that documented successful esophagus transplantations in rats. Minutes of a meeting made public last week show that Kazan Federal University (KFU), Macchiarini's current employer, decided to end his research project there on 20 April, effectively firing him.
[...] Once considered a pioneer of regenerative surgery, Macchiarini aimed to give patients whose tracheas had been damaged a new windpipe. "Seeded" with stem cells, it was supposed to grow into a new, fully functional organ. (He initially used donor tracheas as a basis, but later switched to an artificial scaffold.) But he has been accused of painting a false picture of his patients in scientific papers, several of which have been retracted; operating without ethical approval; and lying on his CV. At least six of the eight artificial trachea recipients have died. In Sweden, where the case has plunged science into a crisis, investigations continue into allegations including involuntary manslaughter.
This isn't our first encounter with Dr. Macchiarini.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday May 20 2017, @04:00PM (2 children)
So, this guy sounds bad. But I'm confused about the role of the paper retraction. He is listed as the last author within a set of 23 authors. Was his contribution the main reason for this retraction? If it was due to unethical stuff, how did this slip past the notice of the other 22 authors? (I know that a lot of "authors" on scientific papers may not all be engaging that actively, but surely some of these 22 other authors were paying some attention?)
Who are these 22 other folks? How many of them signed off on this work without noticing or caring about problems? Did any of the rest of them help to fabricate data? Have they suffered any professional consequences? Or were they all just a giant group of his grad assistants or something?
Seems there needs to be a little more explanation in this story about what happened with this paper and its retraction, and why that is considered the most significant element here (rather than "merely" serious failure of actual human procedures coupled with apparent fraudulent claims about them).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20 2017, @05:42PM
I suspect that, if you think too hard about it, the conclusion will be that 99.99% of medical research papers published last year will need to be retracted. This is unacceptable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20 2017, @07:13PM
The rule in the academic world is that if you were in the same room as someone doing some work, then they owe you co-authorship. Also, something else I've been noticing lately: if you are Chinese then you only cite other Chinese authors. There must have been a dictate from above about that.