This article was written by Tina
In recent years, there have been frequent incidents of academic misconduct and paper fraud. But what if the person who is suspected of fraud can still successfully "turn the tables" on his own?
A medical bigwig, after the paper was retracted and the fund was recovered, devoted himself to re-research for several years, and "slapped the questioner" with another top journal research, and also reached a settlement with the scientific research fund institution that had already been on the same page and facing the court.
How did he do it? The questioned data and the retracted papers, are they really wronged?
Sudden retraction! The Foundation questioned the authorities
Niels Birbaumer is a professor at the Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology at the University of Tübingen, Germany, and a global leader in brain-computer interface research, with a focus on unraveling the electrical activity of the brains of patients with severe neurological diseases and finding new treatments.
Source: scribepublications.com
In 2013~2014, Niels and colleagues implanted brain-computer interface devices in 4 patients with severe amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). The device is relatively simple and limited to allowing the patient to answer questions from the outside world. After rehabilitation, one of the patients was able to answer external questions with a 70% accuracy rate, which was successfully confirmed by functional neuroimaging[1] and published in the academic journal PLoS Biology in 2017.
Screenshot of the paper
At the time, many media reports described the study as "groundbreaking". "This is the first time we have been able to establish reliable communication with these patients." "After 30 years of hard work, when the therapy did work, it was one of the most satisfying moments of my life," Niels said.
However, in 2019, the German Science Foundation (DFG) suddenly launched an investigation into Niels' paper for "alleged academic misconduct".
DFG is a non-profit organization responsible for funding scientific research in Germany, and its status in the field of scientific research in Germany is equivalent to that of the NIH in the United States and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. DFG was also a major funding sponsor in Niels' study.
The DFG investigation found that Niels' paper had problems such as data falsification and insufficient disclosure, and took a series of severe punitive measures[2], including depriving Niels of his status as a DFG-funded project reviewer, prohibiting him from applying for new DFG-funded projects for 5 years, recommending that journals retract articles suspected of academic misconduct, and recovering used funds.
Subsequently, the editor of PLoS Biology retracted the paper in question[5], and the University of Tübingen, where Niels worked, had a serious contract dispute with him and decided to dismiss Niels.
Screenshot of the retraction page of the paper
But this vigorous academic crackdown did not end there.
Data falsification, insufficient disclosure? The two sides went to court
What exactly did Niels fake? According to the findings published by DFG[3], it was found that Niels' article had 4 points of alleged academic misconduct:
1. Selective data analysis: No clear and verifiable data selection criteria were established, resulting in some datasets being excluded due to technical issues and personal decisions of senior professors.
2. Insufficient disclosure of data and scripts: Data links are provided in the article, but necessary scripts are missing. In addition, the data later provided to the investigation team also failed to verify the statements in the article, and key data sets, such as electroencephalogram (EEG) data, were missing.
3. Inconsistent patient data: The article claims that four patients (advanced ALS) were treated with their brain-computer interface technology, and the number of days of use varied from patient to patient. However, the team found that the number of days of actual data available provided by the team did not match the number of days stated in the assessment provided in the article.
4. Incorrect Analysis: The raw data generated when the patient used the brain-computer interface was analyzed through electronic data processing, but the team did not disclose the key software components used for the evaluation to the investigation team. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the data has been properly validated. Prior to that, a former employee of the Niels team noted in November 2015 that the team's study could not prove any statistically significant results from the data.
The heavily questioned, Niels did not sit still.
He soon published an article in PLoS Biology in response to the question, and also gave an interview to a Nature reporter. Niels noted that neurological tests may be suspended because patients with severe ALS in the study often require care such as suctioning, so it is not uncommon for results to be discontinuous.
In response to the data and research methodology questions questioned by DFG, Niels said that the research treatment method is "universally recognized" and "tailored to the characteristics of the research". For example, in the case of EEG, the frequency of the patient's EEG may be affected by objective factors such as mechanical ventilation, so it is completely reasonable for researchers to use highly specific data for analysis.
Nature 2019年报道
According to Niels, the questioning views raised by the DFG are completely medically unfounded and even a "manifest error". However, my article only needs to supplement part of the research data, and there is no academic misconduct.
But instead of convincing DFG, Niels' efforts led PLoS Biology to retract his response when he retracted his research paper.
Niels then filed a lawsuit in court, still insisting that he had not committed academic misconduct, arguing that DFG's punishment was unreasonable, and the two sides went to court.
Rollback! He came back 3 years later with new research
However, the lawsuit was far less neat than the retraction, and the trial lasted for many years without a result. During this time, there were even media reports that Niels had been forced to leave Germany and disappeared......
就在大家以为 Niels 已经销声匿迹时，2022 年 3 月，他以共同通讯作者的身份在 Nature Communications 发表了一篇题为 Spelling interface using intracortical signals in a completely locked-in patient enabled via auditory neurofeedback training（完全闭锁病人通过听觉神经反馈训练实现的利用颅内信号的拼写界面）的论文[6]，几乎复现了他此前被撤稿的研究结果。
Screenshot of the paper
This study is believed to be the first time in history that "patients in locked-in states can communicate with the outside world through brain-computer interfaces".
In the study, Niels included a patient who was completely locked due to ALS and had severe neurological damage and was on a ventilator for basic survival. After implanting a brain-computer interface, the patient adjusts the nerve firing rate based on auditory feedback, selects letters one by one, and can form words and phrases.
"Hungarian beef soup and sweet peas", "I love my cool son", ...... Through the brain-computer interface, the patient successfully realized the dialogue with the family.
Science's coverage of the study
In an interview with the medical press [8], Niels stated that the new study was not done to save his reputation. "We're not doing this for fun or to get published, we just want these patients to live."
As soon as this study came out, many people in the industry believed that Niels' "turnaround" opportunity may have come, and he is likely to withstand the pressure and continue to work in the ALS field.
On April 5, 2022, less than a month after the publication of the Nature Communications paper, DFG announced on its official website that it had signed a settlement agreement with Niels[7], under which all previous punitive measures against Niels would be lifted immediately.
Screenshot of DFG's official website
However, DFG also said that it did not accept Niels' claim of "rehabilitation". "The procedures for the academic misconduct investigation conducted by the DFG against Professor Niels were in accordance with the regulations, and an amicable settlement was reached to avoid a protracted legal dispute."
With the settlement agreement signed, the court stopped further trial and judgment on the matter, so the question of whether Niels' retracted article was fake or not ended in "no solution".
Today, Niels retains his teaching position at the University of Tübingen, and he has also accepted a research position at an Italian medical research institute. However, after a series of events, the number of papers he has published and the number of corresponding authors of papers are no longer as good as they were back then. The glory that belongs to him may no longer be able to be reproduced.
Title image source: screenshot of the paper, scribepublications.com
Resources:
[1] Chaudhary U, Xia B, Silvoni S, et al. Brain-Computer Interface-Based Communication in the Completely Locked-In State. PLoS Biol. 2017; 15(1):e1002593. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002593
[2]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02862-4#ref-CR2
[3]https://www.dfg.de/de/service/presse/pressemitteilungen/2019/pressemitteilung-nr-46
[4] Chaudhary U, Pathak S, Birbaumer N. Response to: "Questioning the evidence for BCI-based communication in the complete locked-in state". PLoS Biol. 2019; 17(4):e3000063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000063
[5] PLOS Biology Editors. Retraction: Response to: "Questioning the evidence for BCI-based communication in the complete locked-in state". PLoS Biol. 2019; 17(12):e3000608. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000608
[6] Chaudhary U, Vlachos I, Zimmermann JB, et al. Spelling interface using intracortical signals in a completely locked-in patient enabled via auditory neurofeedback training. Nat Commun. 2022; 13(1):1236. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28859-8
[7]https://www.dfg.de/en/service/press/press-releases/2022/press-release-no-09
[8]https://www.statnews.com/2022/03/22/niels-birbaumer-brain-computer-interface-research/