Disgraced surgeon is still publishing on stem cell therapies
Paolo Macchiarini, an Italian surgeon, has been fired from two institutions and faces the retraction of many of his papers after findings of scientific misconduct and ethical lapses in his research—yet this hasn't prevented him from publishing again in a peer-reviewed journal. Despite his circumstances, Macchiarini appears as senior author on a paper published last month investigating the viability of artificial esophagi "seeded" with stem cells, work that appears strikingly similar to the plastic trachea transplants that ultimately left most of his patients dead. The journal's editor says he was unaware of Macchiarini's history before publishing the study.
"I'm really surprised," says cardiothoracic surgeon Karl-Henrik Grinnemo, one of the whistle-blowers who exposed Macchiarini's misconduct at the Karolinska Institute (KI) in Stockholm. "I can't understand how a serious editorial board can accept manuscripts from this guy."
Macchiarini was once heralded as a pioneer of regenerative medicine because of his experimental transplants of artificial tracheas that supposedly developed into functional organs when seeded with a patient's stem cells. But his career came crashing down after the Swedish documentary Experimenten showed the poor outcomes of his patients, all but one of whom have now died. (The lone survivor was able to have his implant removed.) Macchiarini was subsequently fired from KI, both the university and a national ethics board found him guilty of scientific misconduct in several papers, and Swedish authorities are now considering whether to reopen a criminal case against him.
In vitro assessment of electrospun polyamide‐6 scaffolds for esophageal tissue engineering (DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.34116) (DX)
Previously: Nobel Prize for Medicine Judges Asked to Resign for Involvement in Scandal
Thoracic Surgeon Loses Funding After Paper Retraction
Related Stories
Two judges on the panel that awards the Nobel prize for medicine have been asked to resign:
Two judges have been asked to leave a panel that picks the Nobel prize for medicine in a scandal surrounding a disgraced Italian transplant surgeon. The decision to drop Harriet Wallberg and Anders Hamsten came after the Swedish government sacked the entire board of the prestigious Karolinska Institute, where the scientist worked.
Paolo Macchiarini was seen as a leading specialist on windpipe transplants. But two of his patients died and he was accused of falsifying his work record. Dr Macchiarini denies all the charges against him.
The two judges who lost their positions on the Nobel panel have both served as heads of the Karolinska Institute, and were among several individuals suspected of ignoring warnings about the Italian windpipe scientist.
Also at Reuters.
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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @06:46AM (2 children)
If so, please to tell me how IT engineers find jobs in England.
I tried dice.co.uk but DICE Holdings is SOL because dice.co.uk is an actual dice manufacturer. "Dice" as in "Snakeyes!"
(Score: 3, Informative) by WizardFusion on Tuesday May 01 2018, @09:44AM (1 child)
jobsite.co.uk
Don't use cv-library.co.uk, they are shite
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @05:38PM
May I bear your firstborn?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01 2018, @07:34AM (1 child)
Journal and editor
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 01 2018, @06:33PM
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/15524981/homepage/productinformation.html [wiley.com]
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials
Society For Biomaterials
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/15524981/homepage/editorialboard.html [wiley.com]
Editor
Jeremy L. Gilbert, Ph.D.
Clemson University
Department of Bioengineering
Clemson, SC 29634
E-mail: jlgilbe@clemson.edu
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aiwarrior on Tuesday May 01 2018, @08:15AM (1 child)
Playing a bit the devil's advocate, his past research should not bear importance to the new one, unless the proved false research is the base premise of this new study.
If past research is not used we are just committing ad-hominem fallacies. Imagine that he now is onto something. This would be important.
In the end, what should be at stake here is not that the guy should be blacklisted. What is at stake is that his previous research should be considered inadmissible premises for new work, unless there is re-work. This is like me proposing a scientific explanation of light based on ether. It is not me that should be evaluated, but the quality of premises. The magazine's review board should judge on that. I think even the reviewers often do not have access to the submitters name but i might be wrong.
More and more I dearly value the lessons in high school philosophy about fallacies. They are the swiss knife for the truth.
About the criminal charges and disgrace, this is another matter for the current society to judge.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MostCynical on Tuesday May 01 2018, @09:01AM
Two ideas should be separated:
1. Man does research, submits paper, paper, and, maybe, the research and its' outcomes, are assessed and then ,possibly, published
2. Man kills people.
Here we have situation one.
Situation two is more messy: were the people going to die anyway? Was the research properly supervised? Were all the ethics submissions filled-in correctly?
Lots of questions, and what seems to be more butt-covering and ducking responsibility for *potentially* avoidable deaths, rather than genuine assessment of a man's reasearch.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 01 2018, @02:07PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkQG-O-8b90 [youtube.com] or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF44H2g4suQ [youtube.com]
Heyyy Macchiarini!!
Helifino what they're saying - looks like "Head bone connect to the neckbone, neckbone connect to the belly bone, connect to the assbone" or something like that.