Talk 1 at Research Integrity workshop at Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne, April 6th 2018 http://www.mpipz.mpg.de/events/13302/4358571

1. Research misconduct
in plant science:
infectious and toxic
Leonid Schneider,
Independent science journalist
leonid.schneider@gmail.com
Twitter: @schneiderleonid
www.forbetterscience.com

2. Junior scientists are often told by their advisors:
- If you can deliver this result,
you will publish a nice paper and have a job
- If you don’t deliver this result,
you will not publish any paper and have no job
Dangerous confirmation bias:
- repeating experiment to be sure of its result’s reproducibility
is not the same as
- repeating it until the result finally fits the “expected” one
How it starts

3. Why do scientists manipulate data?
• Motivation: to prove a pre-
conceived theory against lack
of experimental evidence
• Outcome: irreproducible
findings, pollution of scientific
literature, suffocation of
correct theories, usurpation
of a research field
• When caught: fraud scandal
and collapse of a research
field

4. Why do scientists manipulate data?
• Motivation: To scoop a
competitor lab on an
unpublished discovery they
made
• Outcome: dishonestly
acquired fame, funding and
domination of a research
field
• When caught: a careless
visionary genius, since
findings still reproducible!

5. Scientists occasionally help data to fit their
theoretical model for a publication
• Selective data acquisition, omission of critical controls
(very common)
• “Adjustments” or manipulation of data
(less common)
• Data falsification / fraud
(very rare)

6. 1. Selective data acquisition, omission of critical controls
• Small sample size, single experiments
• Cherry-picking
- discard odd samples/data which “spoil” the theory
- declare technically perfectly fine experiments as
failed if result doesn’t “fit”
• Control avoidance
- You know which control experiments would test
your theory, but you prefer not to do those
• Deliberate artefacts
- sticking to and hoarding an obscure reagent
because it’s the only one producing desired results
(e.g., a faulty batch of antibody, false primers)

7. 2. “Adjustments” or manipulation of data
• Heavy cherry-picking
- selective deletion of entire sets of “outliers”
• Triplicating
- turning one single experiment into a triplicate
• p-hacking -
- statistics trickery to obtain significance. Most
published p-values are mysteriously just below 0.05!
• Loading controls
- gel loading controls libraries
- loading control swapping between gels
- other trickery to pretend equal gel or PCR loading

8. 3. Data falsification / fraud
• Falsification
- you think you got the experimental result right, but
just don’t have the “perfect” figure for the paper.
So you falsify one with Photoshop.
• Fraud
- you think biology is too stupid and incompetent to
follow your grand reasoning.
So you fake data against all experimental evidence to
get your theory published

9. Scientists waste time, money and their careers trying to
reproduce unreliable or manipulated results
• Poor reproducibility in combination with high competition
undermines productivity, work moral, trust and motivation
• It leads to even more data manipulation and fraud in science

10. Fake research data just illustrations for correct results!
• Despite data manipulations: “key findings of this paper
remain valid”
• Universities and journals treat figures and data as uncoupled
and secondary to the postulated results

11. Risk vs gain
• Manipulating data or working “sloppily” is a risk
• Benefits are huge: science rarely sanctions misconduct
• Risk to your career diminishes with your status increase:
• PhD students get sacked while professors get reprimanded
• Senior researchers enjoy supportive and forgiving peer networks
• Avoid getting caught until tenure

12. Photo credit: Maigrot/REA
Olivier Voinnet: almost got a Nobel Prize
• Plant biologist, specializing on
plant-pathogen interaction
• Co-discoverer of siRNA antiviral
defense in plants

13. The stellar career of Olivier Voinnet
• PhD with Sir David Baulcombe at The Sainsbury Laboratory,
Norwich
• Research director at CNRS institute in Strasbourg (age 33)
• Professor at ETH Zürich (since 2010)
• EMBO Gold Medal (2009)
• EMBO Member
• EMBO Young Investigator grant
• ERC grants
• Max-Rössler-Prize (ETH Zürich,
2013)
• Discovery of siRNA as mobile
antiviral silencing signal
• Discovery of siRNA antiviral defense
in mammals
• Papers in Science, Cell, PNAS,
Nature Genetics, Plant Cell etc
Imagesource:EMBO

14. It started with irregularities in papers from
Baulcombe lab

15. Olivier Voinnet publications
flagged on PubPeer

16. Vicki Vance
Professor of Botany, University of South Carolina
Vicki Vance: the key Whistle-Blower in Voinnet case
The plant science community initially responded by attacking Vance (even on Twitter)
for breach of confidence

17. • Investigations at CNRS, ETH and EMBO
• Voinnet lost his lab in Strasbourg, barred
by CNRS for 2 years
• EMBO withdrew Gold Medal
• Funding by SNSF revoked + funding ban
• some previously corrected papers
retracted when more came out
• 8 Retractions
• 18 corrections
Voinnet punished for misconduct

18. • External ETH investigator Witold Filipowicz
had financial COI before investigation and
after went on Sabbatical invited by David
Baulcombe
• Voinnet kept professorship at ETH
• Investigation of PhD thesis (many admitted
manipulations) by University of East Anglia
aborted or whitewashed (remains secret)
• ERC Advanced Grant retained
• A fraudulent Science 2006 paper saved from
retraction, despite ETH decision
• Cell openly refused to act on several papers
with manipulations
But on the plus side…..

19. • Olivier Voinnet faked many figures in almost
all of his publications
• Mystery as to why he faked data, his original
research was declared perfectly fine*
• Unfortunately, original unmanipulated
images are all lost, but Voinnet faithfully
reproduced all results, even >10 years after
• Retracting his papers would damage his
“junior scientists” who are professors and
group leaders now
Official Voinnet narrative
* (Actually, some of his scientific claims were
contradicted by others and Voinnet himself)

20. Voinnet back in business!
Image source: CNRS

21. Whom ETH forgot to interview
Guillaume Moissiard, former postdoc of Voinnet‘s at ETH, since 2016
tenured CNRS researcher and Group Leader University of Perpignan
1 retraction (PNAS) and 1 mega-correction (RNA)
Constance Ciaudo, former postdoc of Voinnet‘s at ETH, since 2013 full
professor at ETH
1 retraction and 1 correction (both PLOS Genetics)
as well as everyone else from Voinnet lab.
Image source: ETH
Image source: Jacobsen lab

22. On the French side
• CNRS investigative report is secret
• Voinnet barred by CNRS for 2 years: meaning if he returns
to France, he won’t be employed by CNRS for that period
• Not a problem at all if he stays at ETH till retirement
• Voinnet’s right hand man Patrice Dunoyer was suspended
for ONE WHOLE MONTH, despite all his retractions and
corrections
• Like Voinnet, Dunoyer only admitted what was already
evident, was welcomed to publish in respected journals
• Remained head of IBMP Strasbourg lab till early 2018, lab
dissolved now
Image source: CNRS

23. • Bulk of Voinnet’s research was done at
Institut de Biologie Moléculaire des Plantes
(IBMP) in Strasbourg
• CNRS investigative report is secret
• Several IBMP researchers are responsible for
data irregularities in own papers:
CNRS-IBMP: The Olivier Voinnet Institute for Research Integrity in Plant Sciences
 Patrice Dunoyer remained head of Voinnet’s old lab till the lab was dissolved in 2018
 Heike Lange, tenured CNRS researcher, mostly papers from PhD period in Marburg,
Germany (supervisor Roland Lill (DFG Senator) said the gel bands are not duplicated)
 Christophe Ritzenthaler, Pascal Genschik, David Gilmer; Véronique Ziegler-Graff (had
one retraction)
 IBMP director Laurence Maréchal-Drouard
Image source: CNRS

24. A fish rots from its head in CNRS-IBMP
• IBMP director Laurence Maréchal-
Drouard has a PubPeer list longer
than Dunoyer‘s, whose lab she
dissolved
• There are 3 more versions of same
digitally manipulated figure in 2
different PhD theses supervised by
Drouard
• And even more
• And Drouard admitted data
manipulation on PubPeer
• And Drouard was re-appointed as
IBMP director in 2018
• And Drouard now teaches research
integrity to PhD students
Original image source: Twitter

25. • Did postdoc in same The Sainsbury Lab
simultaneously to Voinnet’s PhD there
• Co-authored a highly cited retracted
Voinnet/Baulcombe paper
• CNRS-funded group leader at INRA,
Toulouse, since 2003.
• Studies plant defense against fungal
pathogens
Voinnet’s “little sister”: Susana Rivas
Image source: INRA

26. Rivas’ ex-boss Jonathan Jones did the honest thing
Image source: TSL

27. • Reported by a reader of my site
• Published exclusively on my site
February 2017
Data manipulations found in 5 more Rivas papers

28. Was there ever an investigation?
Rivas lab fully functional, publishing, new funded PhD students, lists
only papers from 2014 on. Updated February 2018

29. CNRS does not know what research integrity is
CNRS interim director Anne Peyroche was
deposed for data manipulations (primarily in 2
papers with same 1st author)
CNRS chief biologist Catherine Jessus was
declared in press release an innocent „victim“
of my „slanderous“ blogging after:
- Data manipulations in her papers were
confirmed, original data absent
- Unnamed investigators declared gel band
duplications were scientifically appropriate
- Corrections were requested where even
such explanations didn‘t work
- French scientists called to „collective
vigilance“ against whistleblowers

30. French science needs your help!
Image source: Twitter

31. Playing the media: Robert Ryan /Max Dow case
• Plant biologist, specializing on plant defense against bacterial pathogens
• Publishing track record with Maxwell Dow, University College Cork
Original UCC press release photo which provoked DMCA take-down claim by Dow against me

32. Leaked scandal

33. PubPeer evidence
Around 10 research
papers affected by
duplicated images

34. Rise and fall of Robert Ryan
• Postdoc with Maxwell Dow, University
College Cork, Ireland
• Started lab at UCC funded by Science
Foundation Ireland
• Since 2013, faculty member at University
of Dundee
• Secret Dundee investigation found
misconduct
• EMBO Young Investigator and Wellcome
Trust Fellowship revoked
• Ryan “stepped down”
• No investigation against Dow at UCC,
which even supported his DMCA-
takedown attack against my site

35. 3 retractions and several corrections
All corrections declare: Conclusions unaffected!

36. Thank you!
Website: forbetterscience.com
Email: leonid.schneider@gmail.com
Twitter: @schneiderleonid