TY - JOUR
T1 - Kaposi's Sarcoma, Vascular Permeability, and Scientific Integrity
AU - Witte, Marlys H.
AU - Borgs, Peter
AU - Way, Dennis L.
AU - Bernas, Michael
AU - Ramirez, Geronimo
AU - Witte, Charles L.
PY - 1994/6/8
Y1 - 1994/6/8
N2 - On March 13,1992, Nakamura et al published an article in the journal Science reporting that sulfated polysaccharide peptidoglycan (SP-PG) inhibited the growth and vascular hyperpermeability characteristics of Kaposi's sarcoma— related cells and lesions in nude mice. While examining their key composite Fig 3, A through E, and related Table 2, we were surprised by several photographic features and other irregularities in the figures, which we explored further through a series of experiments. We were unable to confirm some of the pivotal findings. We communicated our concerns to Science but our letter was rejected. After submission of additional analysis, the matter was reopened by Science, but again our correspondence was rejected. Despite extensive review, the salient points raised in our initial correspondence remain unanswered or only tangentially addressed. The original conclusions by Nakamura et al are still not only highly dubious, but the validity of the peer review process and self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry are also called into question.
AB - On March 13,1992, Nakamura et al published an article in the journal Science reporting that sulfated polysaccharide peptidoglycan (SP-PG) inhibited the growth and vascular hyperpermeability characteristics of Kaposi's sarcoma— related cells and lesions in nude mice. While examining their key composite Fig 3, A through E, and related Table 2, we were surprised by several photographic features and other irregularities in the figures, which we explored further through a series of experiments. We were unable to confirm some of the pivotal findings. We communicated our concerns to Science but our letter was rejected. After submission of additional analysis, the matter was reopened by Science, but again our correspondence was rejected. Despite extensive review, the salient points raised in our initial correspondence remain unanswered or only tangentially addressed. The original conclusions by Nakamura et al are still not only highly dubious, but the validity of the peer review process and self-correcting nature of scientific inquiry are also called into question.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028305770&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028305770&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/jama.1994.03510460061034
DO - 10.1001/jama.1994.03510460061034
M3 - Article
C2 - 8196121
AN - SCOPUS:0028305770
SN - 0098-7484
VL - 271
SP - 1769
EP - 1771
JO - JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
JF - JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
IS - 22
ER -