Doubt

(Reference: JLC1, JLC2, Derek1, Derek2)

Since February 2014, Prof. Tohru Fukuyama's group has issued corrections to 11 published papers in three journals: Angewandte Chemie, Journal of the American Chemical Society, and Organic Letters. Fukuyama's former colleague, Dr. Satoshi Yokoshima (now at Nagoya U), appears as a co-author on 10 of the 11 papers.

Chemical and Engineering News intrepid reporter Beth Halford recently interviewed the two men regarding their ongoing "Correction Crisis." Readers reacted skeptically:

.@cenmag 's Bethany Halford interviews Prof. Fukuyama about NMR spectra issues. Do you buy it? http://t.co/NMvzkofYmW
— Unstable Isotope (@UnstableIsotope) April 12, 2014

[Sigh]...No, I don't.

Let's look at a few more recent correction scandals. After the Cossy group published some strange spectra, Prof. Cossy wrote a letter to the entire Organic Letters community, saying:

"I reach out here with the hope that all readers might learn from this experience as I certainly have. From now on, I will never let a student or postdoc from my group upload a manuscript and/or Supporting Information file to a journal submission site by themselves"

Succinct, supportive, reflective. Prof. Cossy even allowed the responsible lab member to speak through her, saying "I know my behavior is highly unethical. I am deeply sorry for what I have done."

When the Dorta group published a strange statement in the body of their Supporting Information, Dorta spoke to Organometallics Editor John Gladysz, claiming "...the statement [in the SI] was inappropriate." To my knowledge, Prof. Dorta has never blamed his student coauthor, Emma.

Now, let's take a look at the C&EN article. How do Fukuyama and Yokoshima address their spate of corrections?

“Almost all of our recent research accomplishments are the results of close collaboration between myself, Professor Yokoshima, and our students,” Fukuyama explains.

Team spirit! OK, I'm fine with that. Next? (emphasis mine):

“My impression is that some of my students who deleted minor peaks did not take seriously the idea that the spectroscopic data are important proof of the compounds’ purity,” Fukuyama says. “I myself have never manipulated the spectroscopic data or even dreamed that my students would do such a stupid thing.”

Wow. Did they just throw every one of their 19 coauthors (I counted!) under the bus?
Another (emphasis mine):

“It was our fault not to scrutinize every spectrum in the supporting information before sending them out for publication,” Fukuyama adds, “but my staff members and I simply believed that all of my students are honest.” As soon as they learned of the manipulations, he says, “we told our students never to do such a stupid thing. I can assure you that we will never send out manuscripts containing manipulated spectra again.”

To paraphrase the Bard - the Professor doth protest too much, methinks.

Note the "Yes, but..." structure of his argument. See how it lobs the blame squarely back on the coauthors? And the choice of language, calling one's apprentices "stupid" and essentially dishonest? Not cool.

In most scientific organizations, culture comes from the top. Even coauthor Yokoshima admits that...

“We have told our students that the NMR spectra should not contain peaks of residual solvents or impurities for publication...our comments and the limited machine time seemed to have forced them to use the ‘Delete Peak’ function.”

If your group focuses on "clean up your spectra" more than "purify your compounds better," that's a communications issue. If a professor with a large group sees nothing but perfect spectra all day, two thoughts should crop up:

1. "I must have the smartest, most efficient students in the world," or...
2. "Something's fishy here."

Even the busiest profs in the biz - traveling for international conferences, serving on NIH panels, consulting - must still see their students' work at least three times prior to publication. Group meetings, one-on-one office meetings, project round-tables, manuscript submission, reviews, galley proofs? All perfect opportunities to catch ethical errors privately before revealing them to the wider world.

Sadly, the professors don't seem to answer the real question: What went wrong here? Public shaming won't fix your lab's culture. By closing ranks and shutting out 19 potential collaborators, Fukuyama and Yokoshima invite even more scrutiny into their lab's motivations.

Update (4/12/14) - Changed the last paragraph to avoid any judgment on the interview style. I believe Ms. Halford conducted it just fine.

Fukuyama, Round 2

Update, 4/3/14 - On a hunch, I looked through major publishers' databases for more recent Fukuyama corrections sharing a specific author's name. Found this (Chartelline C) at ACIEE, alleging "[im]properly processed NMR spectra." Since this author published >40 papers with Fukuyama, more may be coming.

ACIEE, 2014 (above) and 2012 (below)

An astute commenter has clued me in to the latest round of corrections coming from the Fukuyama research group (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Targets affected include lyconadins A-C, ecteinascidin 743, and mersicarpine, and publication dates range from 2010-2013. This time, they're in JACS which, to my knowledge, does not (yet) employ a full-time data analyst like Organic Letters does.

The corrections read much the same as the last raft, released two months prior in Org. Lett., alleging spectral manipulation for multiple intermediates and final molecules, including removal of solvent peaks. Here's one example showing 13C spectra* for intermediate 7, from the synthesis of lyconadin A:

Original spectrum (2011)*

Corrected Spectrum (2014)*

Clearly, there's a bunch of "stuff" in 7 that had to be digitally removed by one of the authors. And this is just one compound; each paper contains several such examples of "improperly manipulated" spectra (direct quote!).

So, what's going on here? I have a theory, although it's a bit of hearsay since I'm not privy to the inner workings of either journal. However, the astute reader will note one author whose name appears on nine of the ten corrected papers from Feb-April...uh-oh.

Was there a bad apple in the Fukuyama lab? More details as I have them.

*Apologies for the different shading, due to my computer and not their SI files.

Fukuyama Mea Culpa in Organic Letters Corrections

Remember all the recent dust-ups over potentially doctored NMR spectra? How about when Organic Letters EIC Amos Smith went on the offensive, hiring a full-time data analyst to sniff out fishy details?

Well, we have a major opening salvo in the war on sketchy Supporting Information (thanks to an anonymous JLC commenter for the tip-off). Seems that Prof. Tohru Fukuyama (U. Tokyo) has issued six simultaneous Org. Lett. corrections in yesterday's ASAP section. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

This is a big deal, not least because Prof. Fukuyama's reputation looms large in the synthetic community, but more because the corrections impact challenging targets from his group (manzamine A, huperzine A, lysergic acid, histrionicotoxin) and span multiple years (2008-2013).

Shockingly, the corrections all admit deletion of solvent peaks or impurities from final, published spectra. This correction announces 20 such "edits." In some instances, when the group re-examines the spectra, they're so unreliable that they cannot correct the record: "Samples included some unknown impurities, thus the exact purity could not be determined."

I'm not sure whether to applaud or condemn the Fukuyama group - if they chose to come forward voluntarily to correct the record, I applaud the effort. However, if they were instead strong-armed by the OL Data Analyst, then a culture of data manipulation has been uncovered at the highest levels of our field (reminder: this is just one journal, hold on for the slate of corrections in other venues).

Wish I could say that this meant "Case Closed," but I think we're only seeing the tip of the corrections iceberg in Organic Letters.