STAP paper investigation committee assessment report
Investigation committee of RIKEN for reviewing the research fraud of STAP ( Stapp ) cells paper was published report of examination results rejected the appeal of Kobo-kata Haruko Unit Leader (21 pages) . And give a full account of the point of the examination results, the main question-and-answer session of the Commission of Inquiry conference.
About what Cobo how Mr. claimed in appeal, the report of the investigation committee, performed a detailed rebuttal.
Definition of falsification
” Some data “falsification “a. Good change or omission of data that pretend to be present good data even though no ” claim of how Mr. Cobo
If it turned out to be the picture is not correctly displayed in the processing or modifying the operation of the data even (description of the study committee) is good data, and corresponds to the falsification.
” For the purpose of clarity the data, it was replaced by adjusting the size and inclination, another image. This image is consistent with the data before replacing ”
Even changing the angle and scale Cobo way as Mr. argue , image data of the two do not match . Coincide with one another in the visual confirmation, (claim Cobo how Mr. ) not analyzed scientifically .
” In the experiment to see if there is a particular cell , there is no effect on the result and be operated ”
Accurate information of the experiment has been lost by the processed image , and is no longer the experimental results also to be correct .
The presence or absence of malice
” No harm, not the act in order to disguise the results ”
Malicious synonymous with love. In a paper similar post to the U.S. scientific journal Science in 2012 , was pointed out a cut and paste from reviewers . Cobo how he insisted that it is not aware of the specific contents of the pointed out , there is no rationality . Do not submit this paper to the investigation committee, and abandoned the opportunity for explanation. It has been posted in the journal Nature in 7 months later pointed out, that there was a malicious clear.
[Using an image very similar to doctoral thesis of Mr. Cobo how ” fake ( fake ) ” Certified ]
“Data management is insufficient, no. Malicious using images incorrectly ”
Management’s sloppy enough to say,” do not even know a mistake when” the image, but how Mr. Cobo does not stop it . The collected image data of the Institute or dissertation, and stored while repeating and overwritten. Is not believed to be not aware of any possible misuse.
We do not use the image that claim three images of six set that contains an image that is a fake even though was replaced with paper submission , to be correct . You received the explanation and peas in a pod and the image of the problem, but quite different impression. Experimental conditions also different, it is difficult to convince.
“I found an error in the image data itself, and reported ”
Interviews of February, there were no reports of differences in experimental conditions and that the image is derived from a dissertation.
Definition of forgery
And “there is no reason to forge correct image. (Definition of) forgery exists at making experimental results and data that does not exist ”
You received the explanation that there is a description of the January 12 that took out a tumor of the mouse which is the basis of image to page 75 of the laboratory notebook . But there is no date on page 75 , June 73 in the page , there is a description of February to the 76 page . How made the tumor is also not written. There is something wrong explanation that was stained in June and to stain right out the tumor usually.
Circumstances to be taken into account
” There were special circumstances thesis writing in a short period of time , such as changing the institution ”
From paper submission at the time of the first of ’12 , there was a time to replace . There are nine months from adoption to also post Nature paper, had enough opportunity.
Result of the examination, there is no need for a re-examination the same as the final report.