Braggadacio, information control, and fear: Life inside a Brigham stem cell lab under investigation

Retraction Watch ^

[pieceofthepuzzle]

The following post was written by a former research fellow in the lab of Piero Anversa to whom we’ve promised confidentiality. Anversa has previously told us that he cannot comment because of an ongoing investigation.

In the early 2000s, his laboratory published a series of papers regarding the regenerative qualities of bone marrow-derived and cardiac-resident “stem cells."

Those initial findings, as well as the research conducted since those early studies, have always been surrounded by controversy, as many have been unsuccessful in efforts to replicate their results.

The “Hypothesis” was that c-kit (cd117) positive cells in the heart (or bone marrow if you read their earlier studies) were cardiac progenitors that could: 1) repair a scarred heart post-myocardial infarction, and: 2) supply the cells necessary for cardiomyocyte turnover in the normal heart.

This central theme was that which supplied the lab with upwards of $50 million worth of public funding over a decade, a number which would be much higher if one considers collaborating labs that worked on related subjects.

IIn practice, all data that did not point to the “truth” of the hypothesis were considered wrong, and experiments which would definitively show if this hypothesis was incorrect were never performed.

Further, controls that suggested that the data might be artifactual were ignored or not conducted. However, I challenge the readers to determine any of this information from the published manuscripts. So how does this slip through the cracks for years? The fault for this can likely be attributed to multiple sources although a conspicuous lack of stringency in the peer review process of the journals in which they were published come to mind.

In essence, to Dr. Anversa all investigators who questioned the hypothesis were“morons,” a word he used frequently at lab meetings.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Tip of iceberg in science.

[gusopol3]

Apt cliche

[DelaWhere]

The following post was written by a former research fellow in the lab of Piero Anversa to whom we’ve promised confidentiality.

So much for confidentiality.....

[Kenny Bunk]

Misplaced "," .... Piero wasn't promised confidentiality, the whistleblower was. Although with the way people write nowadays, one can never be quite sure, can one?

See your local "newspaper."

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Government financing inevitably corrupts. For example, everyone would admit Climatology as a science is gone! The discipline is now a mouth organ for the "official view" of man made climate change allowing the administration to funnel funds to its party and pay off its buddies at the same time.