An Analysis of the Haruko Obokata Affair

Melita Ruth E. Cruz

2012-78224
Diploma in Creative and Performing Arts
College of Music
 Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary : Summary of Events
II. Background
A.Biography of Obokata
B. Scientific Researcher
III. Analysis
A. Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
B. Proof of Misconduct
C. Type of Misconduct
D. How could it have been avoided
E. Final Analysis
IV. Conclusion
V. References
 I would like to study the case as holistic as I could with a little stretch on the
angle of the media pressure in the Retraction of STAP.

I. Executive Summary : Summary of Events

On December 20,2013 Dr. Haruko Obokatas research paper entitled
Stimulus - Triggered fate conversion of somatic cels into pluripotency was
accepted by Nature, an international weekly journal in Science and published it
on January 29,.2014 They called these cells Stimulus Triggered Acquisition of
Pluripotency Cells or STAP cells which work like an embryonic stem cell, a kind
of cell that maintains the capacity to form cells from muscle to nerve to blood to
potentially any cell type that human body has[6]. These cells are formed by
bathing them into an acid [WHAT ACID?? sources]. Normally many cells die in
the exposure but those who survived as suppose to have a new strain which is
flexible to be any organ cell like embryonic cell.It was suppose to be a ground
breakthrough in the Field of Stem Cell but a few days after, people started
questioning Obokatas research especially scientists who cannot reproduce STAP
cells based on the published paper. Feb 17 Riken Institute, the research
establishment where Dr. Obokata and her team worked for STAP, started
investigating STAPs authenticity and on April 1, Riken announces that Dr.
Obokata have done a misconduct with STAP cells. Six days after Dr. Obokata
was hospitalized and two days after she appeared to the public both with an
apology and a defense. She apologized for not being sufficiently knowledgeable
and experienced on the basic styles and ways to present biological papers. Then
she defended herself by saying she doesnt have a bad intent in writing these
papers; that created STAP cells for over 200 times and if anyone want s to watch
her create STAP, shell go anywhere [7]
II. Background
A. Biography of Obokata
Haruko Obokata is a 33 year-old Japanese chemist who took his Bachelor
Degree from Waseda University Department of App1ied Chemistry Schoolof
Advance Science and Engineering. She finished her graduate studies in Tokyo
Womens Medical Universitys Institute of Andvance BioMedical Engineering
and Science. Dr. Obokata also studied at Harvard Medical School in Boston
under Dr. Charles Vacante who introduced her the idea from which STAP cells
came about. She authored two books about STAP cells which took her into quick
prestige [even being eyed as a Noble Prize candidate] but on that same year, her
papers were retracted.

B. Scientific Researcher
As a graduate in field of Chemistry and Engineering, Dr. Obokata have made
theses and other researches. Her two books entitled Stimulus-Triggered Fate
Conversion of Somatic Cells into Pluripotency which talks about Stimulus -
Triggered Acquisition Pluripotency Cells [STAP] which was about chemically
triggered cells who have survived. The cells before becoming STAP cells were
bathe in [first] adenosine triphosphate then changed into hydrochloric acid which
forces the cells to fight the chemicals in order to -making it Stimulus- Triggered.
Pluripotency is a term used for the ability for a cell to be any cell or tissue except
an embryotic cell.
III. Analysis
A.Allegations of Scientific Misconduct
Riken had conducted 2 Scientific Investigations in Obokatas STAP cells.
The first team was headed by Shunsuke Ishii, a distinguished Senior Molecular
Biologist. The team submitted their Investigatory Report on March 31, 2017
concluding that Obokata not only lacks research ethics but also integrity and
humility as a scientific researcher. The second team was headed by Isao Katsura
who is the Executive Director of the Research Organizaiton Information and
Systems Director - General of the National Institute of Genetics. This team
submitted their report to Riken on December 25,2014. Although the first paper
had shown as to how Obokatas procedure and handling of the whole research
was, the second report had discussed much into detail of the papers. Their claims
against fabrications and falsifications were proven with alot of Figures and
Graphical Analysis . The second also claims Dr. Wakayama and Niwa were found
not guilty of scientific misconduct which is opposing to what the first report
suggests, including Yoshiki Sasai.

B.Proof of Misconduct
Falsification and Fabrication happened in the methodology inconsistencies
and improperly used (or editting of) pictures and graphs that were in Dr.
Obokatas papers. The first team had observed that a part of the Methods section
on Karyotyping (the test done to identify characteristic of cells such as size, shape
and number of chromosomes) of Obokatas First Parper was copied from a book
entitled Muliticolor Karyotype Analyses of Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells by J
Guo. Also there is also a part of the procedures described in the Methods section
on karyotyping that shows to be different form the actual methodology used in
the experiment.[13]This is a list of some images and what were lacking or
inaccurate according to Isau Katsuras team:
(1) Fig. 1h in the Article The upper part of the histogram is missing and accurate evaluation of
the data is impossible.
(2) Fig. 2b of the Extended Data in the Article It was impossible to determine whether the 24-h
experiment tracked the CD45-immunoreactivity of the same cell or not.
(3) Fig. 5g in Extended Data of the Article Between data 3 and data 4, there is an unaccounted for
gap suggesting the two graphs had been spliced together.
(4) Fig. 8e in Extended Data of the Article The photos of STAP stem cells and ES cells are
suspected to have been mistaken for each other.
(5) Fig. 4b in the Letter STAP cells and ES cells are suspected to have been mislabeled (reason 4
for the papers retraction).
(6) Fig. 1c of the Extended Data in the Letter Left and right photos are of different sizes and they
do not overlap each other. [14]

C.Type of Misconduct
There are two categories of Scientific Misconduct: Negligence and
Deliberate Dishonesty.[8] Obokatas case falls into the second category which is
concerned the scientists deliberate intention to do fraud. Riken accused Obokata
for Falsificaton and Fabrication of data in her papers. These two accusations
along with piracy, plagrism and hoaxes fall in this category.
Fabrication happens when a scientist or a group of scientists are inventing
data or results and recording or reporting them.Falsification, in the other hand, is
manipulating research materials, tools or procedures or changing or removing
data or results which affects the accuracy presented in the research record.[9] [10]
 According to Riken, Obokatas falsification and fabrication happened as they
saw numerous errors in the papers, including figures that are incorrect and there
had been improper manipulation of images and some errors with the use of
instruments including errors in the manner of carrying out experiments which are
the primary responsibility of Obokata herself since she was the one who put the
images in the paper and the one who did the experiments.[11]

D.How could it have been avoided

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity said in 2011:
Research integrity requires honesty in presenting goals and intentions, in reporting methods
and procedures and in conveying interpretations. Research must be reliable and its communication
fair and full. Objectivity requires facts capable of proof, and transparency in the handling of data.
Researchers should be independent and impartial and communication with other researchers and
with the public should be open and honest. All researchers have a duty of care for the humans,
animals, the environment or the objects that they study. They must show fairness in providing
references and giving credit for the work of others and must show responsibility for future
generations in their supervision of young scientists and scholars.[1]
Here we can see that honesty is very essential in any scientific research. For
(1) Science will only advance from trustworthy studies tested and proven over a
period of time and (2) many people and societies will be negatively affected once
knowledge is proven to be false.
As presented by many stem cell researchers (like?), one of the greatest
problem of STAP is its consistency with reproduction. Fellow researchers and
critics must have been convinced with the STAP if several testings proved it to be
effective. Betteryet as many as the attempts to reproduce STAP cells (of which
Dr.Obokata herself had a hard time with), are the criticisms and accusations
thrown into the institution and to Dr.Obokata herself.
Now to view the case impartially and to study it as holistically as we would
attempt, we have to see and consider the contribution of other people that led
towards Dr.Obokatas misconduct. To blame her solely for her actions and the
consequences she is facing would yes be logical but that view would most
probably limit us of seeing the whole picture because there are actually many
people to be corrected upon her misconduct and if we are going to start
chronologically, the first would be the professors who paneled Dr.Obokatas
Thesis Paper back in Waseda University, who had overlooked a number of
erroneous handling of thesis papers and thesis defense. Dr.Obokata was accused
of copying some of her thesis papers into the STAP publication and was found
that her submitted thesis is but a draft of the final. And she slips off and grabs her
diploma with the excuse that everyone does that mistake in our university.
[sources??] And if she said so, if she then opens a common mistake of the
students and the common tolerance and overlooking of paneling profs, shouldnt
we also involve them as they have allowed these things to be common in their
university? That if they had corrected and disciplined their students from their
early stages of becoming professional researchers, if they have not tolerated the
practice of passing a draft instead of finalized paper, if they have studied the
graphs and the details presented by each of their student researcher with much
attention and being highly critical in making a scientific paper, I would like to
consider that this scientific misconduct might not have happened. For doing a
thesis paper not only involves in getting results but also encompasses social
responsibility,ethics, integrity and professionalism as a whole. And each
academic institution should never compromise establishing those attitudes since
their graduates serves as their identity. And though this is not an immediate
factor why Obokata misconducted,it is also not safe to say that her misconduct is
of an isolated case of her life as a researcher. The attitude or the habit of
overlooking (like any attitude or habit) must have come to an accepted norm in a
society or of a person. And with that being said, I wanna put across that Waseda
University has something to change with their theses paneling.
Nature has also its fault. While it is true that they had rejected the study at
first, they still have the same authority to reject it again and have it unpublished if
so they are not confident with the credibility and reliability of STAP. Another
angle of this can be seen when Dr. Sasai assured Dr.Obokata that her papers will
be published since he knows the editors of Nature [sources???]. That happened
after she already got rejected and Dr.Sasai helped her revise the two papers. And
it was then approved and published. Politics is in the corner, isnt?What would
happen if it is not Dr.Sasai who backed - up Dr.Obokata? Will they reject her
again?
But this is not to hoist that Politics run Nature just as Politics is everywhere
but this shows how Nature, at this point, considers a research entry : connections
from those inside. But I would also want to consider that they have their own
criteria of accepting research entries since Nature is one of the well-known
Science Publications over four decades [proof of 40 years na ang Nature???] and
it has been used and sited by many students and scientists all over the world.
[They must have a criteria]. The scientific misconduct must have avoided when
they have considered- from the very beginning of entry,how would the
reproduction of STAP cells be possible. They did some overlooking too as they
didnt see the flaws inside the papers (graphical similarities on comparative
studies of STEM and Embryonic Cells ) and outside the papers (copying other
research papers to fabricate certain parts of the STAP study).
If Nature evaluated thoroughly Sasai and Obokatas revised works before
publishing it, they could have saved themselves from being criticized by the
media. Also, if they have ensured the possibility reproduction beforehand and
reject it once more if feasibility went to be weak. However, I would like to think
about what if Nature, upon publishing this article, opens or ends it with a
disclaimer that the study is still unstable or that reproducing STAP cells is still in
the process? Will it change to whole perspective and level of expectancy of the
media and their readers? If the disclaimer happens early before the reactions and
criticisms flooded Riken, Nature and the Scientists, perhaps the degree or level of
damage with the institutions and the people involved could have been lighter.
In the website The New Yorker, there was a paragraph saying that Nature is
in the job of issuing amateur scientific researches that are mostly subjected into
much evaluation. Nature running for many years must have published a lot
however, there are groups of people like Dave himself who continues to validate
Natures entries by doing the experiments themselves. However, it is also tiring
and laborious to fault-find each issue. But then, having people who double-check
Nature gives us a hint that their issues are not that purely if not mostly credible
for if they are, people like Dave would stop pin-pointing the first. There are also
Media played a big role in presenting the scandal and since it has been a big
issue in the Sciences, reporters, bloggers and writers have been getting details
from Obokata, Sasai, Vacanti and other people involved thus, pressing the issue
more than it should be. The Japanese Times published articles in tracking the
scandal. Washington Times,The Newyorker, The Guardian also did articles with
 interviews from reporters and/or writers themselves. All these articles, as I have
read, have some interviews and details drawn from the Scientists
themselves.Doing interviews, alone not only takes time but also reminds
interviews of how the issue went and pressing on how they went wrong and/or
how mistaken they have been interpreted. Interviews didnt happen twice or
thrice. Japan Times interviewed Obokata and Sasai many times. And I would like
to draw the line that these interviews are not only tiresome but also unforgiving
as it goes over and over again, resulting into depression to the Scientists
themselves. Obokata was hospitalized and Sasai, overwhelmed by shame,
committed suicide.
This severe depression leading to suicide could have been avoided or atleast
not considered as an end if Media were controlled from pressuring their
interviewees for the sake of keeping the crowd updated. Maybe if there was a
interview - controller for these Scientists I mean, if there was a person or a group
of people who protects and minimizes the interviews from these Scientists, Media
pressure must have been avoided and depression could have not been that severe.
Now for the Fabrication and Falsification which is the whole issue, I have no
other idea of avoiding it other than not doing them. Fabrication and Falsification
is nothing to do with ignorance and/or lack of consciousness. It is a matter of
choice of the authors. And Obokata didnt just allowed that to happen, she
decided to do that herself. This ranks as the top of what could have been
avoided which is [barely] choosing not to do so.
What could have been done to prevent this to happen involved different
levels. The Institutional level (with Riken), The Departmental level(with the
Center of Developmental Biology) and into the individual level (with Obokata
herself).Columbia Universitys Donald Kornfeld, a clinical psychiatrist gave the
Academic Magazine a study of 146 US Office of Research Integrity cases from
1992-2003 and come up 2 recommendations with how to avoid and stop
reoccurence of Research Misconduct. First is to have an improvement in the
quality of teaching in the training programs that the institutions do and second,
provide a policy that recognizes the important contributors of whistleblowers and
secure effective means of protecting them from getting even[2].
With the Departmental and Individual levels, The VU University Medical
Center Amsterdam gave seven ways to prevent scientific fraud and three of the
most relevant for this case are (1) Cooperation between researchers, a policy on
publishing that has a through independent pear review and mutual evaluation of
research (2)the head of research department should give an introduction to all
PhD students to the rules of good scientific conduct. Professors should have
discussions about these issues as soon as the contract starts and lastly, (3) forming
a team for Internal Reporting whom will open thorough discussions about the
research study.[1]

E.Final Analysis
The scandal had opened the floss in the system of many institutions and
individuals in Science. We drew how Natures way of qualifying research entries
was (with shades of Politics). We drew how Riken institution was not too much
strict on scientific credibility of researches. And we drew Scientists who had
taken unethical actions towards their profession.

IV. Conclusion
 Misconduct is a serious violation for all profession.. The effects of doing so
entails not only an individual but also the institution(s) to which the individual
represent. Scientific misconduct ruins the reputation and integrity of everyone
involved whether direct or indirect. Dr.Obokatas paper were not only retracted
but her PhD title was also taken from her. The Riken after suffering Sasais
suicide replaced many of their researchers and are taking measures in re-
establishing Rikens integrity as one of the fore-runners of research institutes in
Japan.
Dr.Obokatas misconduct was nonetheless a conglomerating product of her
school, advisers, fellow scientists and her own decision to fabricate and falsify
the two papers. One might not cancel out the doubt that maybe she is right, that
STAP cells really exists and can be done except that her papers were not
scientifically profound and accurate. But if so, who would know and who would
believe?
I would conclude that Dr. Obokata have conducted a misconduct with regards
to the investigations. If so STAP cells do exist, it should be reproduced by
scientists but none have every replicated it so shows that the study needs to be
either disregarded or further researched (which many gave up already) before
being proven right.
V. References
1. Developmental and Individual Levels of avoiding fraud in science
https://www.vumc.com/branch/research-code-VUmc-AMC/Misconduct/
2. Suggestion for institution to avoid fraud in Science
http://retractionwatch.com/2012/07/16/how-can-institutions-prevent-scientific-
misconduct/
3. Natures Mega Correction
http://stapcell.blogspot.com/
4.The Stress Test
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/29/the-stem-cell-scandal
5. Ongoing Obokata story seeks out scandal
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/07/05/national/media-national/ongoing-
obokata-story-seeks-scandal/
6 Stem Cells https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/Regenerative_Medicine/2006Chapter1.htm
7Obokata speaks about stem cell research probe
http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2014/04/09/live-obokata-speaks-about-stem-cell-
research-probe/
8 Types of Scientific Misconduct
http://www.tissuegroup.chem.vt.edu/chem-ed/ethics/vinny/ethix_1.html
9 Definition of Research Misconduct
https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct
10Falsificaiton/Fabricaiton of Data
http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/research-integrity/fundamental-types-
research-dilemmas/falsificationfabrication-data
11Report on Stap Cell Research Paper Investigation [same as 14]
http://www3.riken.jp/stap/e/c13document52.pdf
12 Shunsuke Ishii
http://www.riken.jp/en/research/labs/distinguished/mol_genet/
13 Riken First Paper for Investigation
http://www3.riken.jp/stap/e/f1document1.pdf
14 Rikens Second Paper for Investigation
http://www3.riken.jp/stap/e/c13document52.pdf
15 Plutipotent meaning
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/pluripotent
16 Misconduct on STAP Case
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39613/title/Misconduct-Found-in-
STAP-Case/
17 STAP Papers retracted
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40408/title/STAP-Papers-Retracted/
18 New Riken chief pledges to restore trust after scandal
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/04/01/national/science-health/new-riken-chief-
pledges-restore-trust-scandal/#.WMvuLDsrLIU