Editor’s note: The headline on this article was changed because it was misleading. Although the UCLA professor made allegations of fraud, the official U investigation found no evidence of fraud – only “reckless misconduct.” We regret the error.
 
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story is part two of a three-part series. Read part one here.
According to the U’s research misconduct policy and procedure, “ ‘misconduct’ or ‘misconduct in research’ means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practices that seriously deviate from those practices that are commonly accepted in the research community.”
A professor of pathology at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, reported the situation to the Federal Office of Research Integrity. The professor requested to remain anonymous. The Daily Utah Chronicle does not usually publish anonymous sources, but the professor could face serious professional consequences if he were named.
In an emailed statement released exclusively to The Daily Utah Chronicle, the professor, who was also a colleague of Dr. Ivana De Domenico, said the errors found in the research were substantial and obvious.
“As to the history of this case,” he said, “the irregularities were noticed by several of my colleagues worldwide who paid close attention to the publications because of their inability to reproduce many of the key results. Although we tried to share our concerns with Dr. Kaplan, the problems continued to accumulate. At some point the manipulations of data became so brazen and obvious that I volunteered to contact the U. of Utah as a spokesman for many colleagues in our field.”
He said it is unlikely their errors went unnoticed.
“As a scientist, I do not find it plausible that the irregularities noted in almost all articles under review by the University of Utah could have occurred inadvertently or without the knowledge of the primary author,” he said.
He also agrees with the Consolidated Hearing Committee (CHC) conclusion of “reckless disregard of accepted practices,” instead of higher charges of intentional misconduct because it is difficult to legally prove that the intent to falsify occurred within these circumstance.
The CHC was unable to pin intentional misconduct on De Domenico.
“The Appeals Committee didn’t identify sufficient evidence, as far as they were concerned, that made it clear by a preponderance of evidence that she was the one responsible,” Jeffrey R. Botkin said.
A preponderance of evidence means enough evidence is provided to exceed reasonable doubt.
Kaplan’s lab has been a prodigious lab on campus for quite some time, and has received a substantial amount of funding.
Botkin said the lab has been “very successful” in receiving federal funding in grants. Botkin estimated that “it was in the millions of dollars in [National Institute of Health] support.”
The problems originally began in the fall of 2011 when the editors of a journal expressed concern to Botkin in regard to data published by the Kaplan lab. In Dec. 2011 the inquiry committee was charged with the investigation of three papers. Shortly after this the committee expanded its probe from three papers to six. The CHC report cites the chronology of the situation as “murky,” but around this time notebooks containing research information within the lab went missing from the laboratory’s records.
Kaplan told Retraction Watch, a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers, that a lab technician who is not longer at the U, was responsible for the disappearance of the records.
“The data were lost when an employee, who was dismissed, discarded lab notebooks without permission,” Kaplan told the blog.
The lab technician in question is no longer in the country and his name has not been publicly released.
Shortly following the disappearance of these documents, Kaplan’s lab retracted two articles from the journal Cell Metabolism. In a retraction notice released to the journal, Kaplan maintains that “the data are reproducible, and the conclusions were not affected by the errors.”
According to the investigative committee’s final report, “the Committee has concluded that the irregularities … constitute misrepresentations of the primary data and reflect a serious breakdown in the process required to ensure that the scientific literature is a faithful record of research results. The large number of instances, over a period of several years, indicates a reckless disregard for the integrity of the research record, as opposed to the occasional lapses that might occur in any laboratory, and the resulting record is now nearly impossible to reconstruct.”
De Domenico’s explanation in regard to the errors is that someone else did the key work which is under scrutiny, and therefore she should not be held liable for the discrepancies. The CHC found De Domenico’s defense to be “inadequate” because if her explanations are true, it shows a lack of control over the scientific data she was responsible for, and it strains credibility that so many similar errors could occur “without her catching at least some of them.”
“Dr. De Domenico acknowledged that serious errors were made, and so it became a question of judgment about how serious were they; and so it was the assessment of the investigative committee that the errors represented a negligence disregard for the integrity of the science,” Botkin says.
As lead author, De Domenico was responsible for checking the viability of the data and graphs, as well as making proper documentation so the experiments could be replicated by other researchers. Out of the 11 papers in question, De Domenico was the lead author for 10 of them. Kaplan is the senior author for all of the papers in question except one.
“I think the report itself,” Botkin said, “found that Dr. Kaplan had not been providing adequate oversight for the publication process of the research results … so it’s a team approach, and it’s important for the senior investigator to provide careful oversight so that the results of the experiment are accurately reflected in the publication.”