STAP Cells and The Importance of Replication and Trust in Scientific Research (original) (raw)

This paper will consider the importance of trust and replication in modern biological sciences research, with a particular reference to the current STAP (stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency) cell controversy. Three lines of defense against scientific fraud have been suggested: peer review, refereeing and replication. This latter is considered the gold standard. As of 8 April 2014, no researchers have claimed success at replicating the STAP procedure, including one of the paper's authors. Trust between researchers also appears to have been an issue in this case. On 29 January 2014, an article and a letter were published in the highly-regarded journal Nature. The publications, from the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology (Japan), claimed that exposing adult cells to extreme stress (such as dipping in acid) could induce these cells to become stem cell-like. Initial reaction from the stem cell community was that this may be a useful technique. One week after publication however, concerns were raised regarding STAP cells -in particular that despite a very simple published method, no other researchers could replicate the results. After two weeks, concerns were raised further when irregularities were observed in the images from the Nature papers. One month after publication, and with a continuing stream of accusations of plagiarism and image manipulation in several different publications (including the lead author's PhD thesis), many in the stem cell field felt that the Nature STAP articles were 'dead'. An internal investigation at RIKEN, possibly politically motivated, did not appear to consider many important issues (such as the possibility of cell culture contamination or plagiarism), and instead seems to scapegoat the lead author, Haruko Obokata. The current STAP cell case is an opportunity to examine how scientific research is carried out. This presentation, alongside a summary of events, will also examine how science polices itself.