Dana-Farber Cancer Institute says the research giant is seeking to retract six studies and correct 31 others, as local scientists face “data forgery” allegations for their cancer research.

This controversy at the Harvard cancer institute comes after the university’s former president, Claudine Gay, resigned amid plagiarism allegations.

Dana-Farber is moving to retract the six manuscripts and correct 31 others following a bombshell blog from scientist Sholto David. His revealing blog took aim at four Dana-Farber researchers, including Dana-Farber President and CEO Laurie Glimcher.

“No doubt Laurie built her career on papers like this one, in Nature Immunology (2003), which includes some impressive contributions to art, but perhaps not to science,” David wrote in the “For Better Science” blog.

“As the whole world furiously argues over whether the president of Harvard did or didn’t use some quotation marks in the right place, scientists at the affiliated Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) must breathe a sigh of relief, no one has bothered to critically read their research in years! Far worse skeletons than plagiarism lurk in the archives…,” wrote David, a molecular biologist.

Related Articles

Boston-area COVID wastewater levels surge; a nasal spray may protect against COVID infection: Dana-Farber researchers

Mass General Brigham bringing back mask mandate, as Boston-area COVID wastewater surges and infections rise

Following David’s explosive post that focused on four researchers, Dana-Farber confirmed that six studies have retractions underway: Requests have been submitted and are being reviewed by the relevant publication, or requests are being prepared.

Also, 31 manuscripts have been identified as needing corrections, which are in various stages of completion. One manuscript with a reported error remains under examination.

“Correcting the scientific record is a common practice of institutions with strong research integrity processes at which basic research is conducted,” said Barrett Rollins, research integrity officer and chief scientific officer, emeritus, at Dana-Farber. “Some of the potential errors that blogger Sholto David flagged had come up in our ongoing reviews.

“Following the usual practice at Dana-Farber to review any potential data error and make corrections when warranted, the institution and its scientists already have taken prompt and decisive action in 97 percent of the cases that had been flagged by blogger Sholto David for which Dana-Farber authors have primary responsibility,” Rollins added.

David’s blog about the Dana-Farber research was headlined, “Dana-Farberications at Harvard University.”

“… the level of data forgery is pathetically amateurish and excessive,” the blog reads.

“In fact, it is worse, because we only see the tiny tip of the fraud iceberg — image data duplications, the last resort of a failed scientist after every other trick failed to provide the desired result,” the post reads.

Earlier this month, Harvard University’s ex-president Claudine Gay stepped down as she faced claims that she had plagiarized, and following the intense backlash over comments she made about antisemitism on campus.

An independent review of Gay’s academic writings found a few instances of inadequate citation. The analysis found no violation of Harvard’s standards for research misconduct.