Former star cancer researcher who sued his university for discrimination notches eighth retraction – Retraction Watch
Jasti Rao, who as soon as earned $700,000 a 12 months on the University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria and was named the primary “Peorian of the Year” earlier than a misconduct investigation put an finish to his time there, has now misplaced eight papers.
Rao’s case is among the many extra colourful that we’ve lined. A highly-regarded cancer specialist, Rao was caught up in a morass of misdeeds, together with not solely plagiarism and manipulation of knowledge however playing and habits tantamount to extortion of his workers. As we reported in 2018:
in 2012 an out of doors legal professional employed by the university concluded that Rao had requested at the very least one worker to pay again greater than $15,000 of his wage — based mostly, partially, on video secretly shot by the worker in 2010, displaying him paying Rao. (According to a 2014 article within the Peoria Journal Star, Rao accused the worker of eavesdropping on him “illegally in a misguided effort to show Rao took bribes and kickbacks from employees.”)
Rao ran up tens of hundreds of dollars in playing money owed, a lot of which he accrued on the university’s time, and even had his credit score minimize off by the Par-A-Dice Casino in Peoria.
Rao sued the University of Illinois, accusing them of discrimination and violation of due course of, however misplaced.
Rao has had six papers retracted from PLOS ONE this 12 months. The most up-to-date retraction entails a 2010 article in titled “Upregulation of PTEN in glioma cells by cord blood mesenchymal stem cells inhibits migration via downregulation of the PI3K/Akt pathway.” The paper has been cited 87 instances, based on Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, with 18 of these citations coming in 2019 and 2020.
According to the retraction discover:
After this text  was revealed, issues have been raised about outcomes reported in Figures 1, 2, and 5.
PTEN and pAktSer473 blots seem the identical within the left and proper panels of Figure 1B, the place the information are reported as representing totally different experiments.
β-actin knowledge look related in lanes 1–5 of Figure 1C and in Figure 1E; the information are reported as representing totally different experiments.
GAPDH panels seem related in Figure 2C (left panel), Figure 5A, and Figure 5B. Figures 5A and 5B signify the identical experimental situations however Figure 2C represents a special experiment.
XIAP and PDGFR panels seem related in Figure 5C.
The first writer offered digital picture knowledge which are accessible to help the figures talked about above, however these knowledge didn’t make clear the problems outlined.
In addition, the article studies a cDNA microarray experiment however doesn’t point out deposition of the microarray knowledge in a public repository as required by the PLOS Data Policy that was in impact when the article was submitted.
The above issues name into query the reliability of the reported outcomes and whether or not the article complied with the journal’s editorial insurance policies. In mild of those points, the PLOS ONE Editors retract this text.
VRD didn’t agree with retraction. The different authors both couldn’t be reached or didn’t reply instantly.
Although Rao misplaced his lawsuits, he was capable of scratch out a victory of types within the affair. The remaining investigation into his analysis reached an ambiguous conclusion. According to courtroom paperwork that cited the report:
The Investigation Panel, nonetheless, concluded that it “could not reach the level of confidence as indicated by the term ‘preponderance’” to search out that Plaintiff was instantly accountable for the problems with the papers below evaluation, discovering as an alternative, that he acted recklessly…
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to help our work, observe us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our every day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s not in our database, you may tell us right here. For feedback or suggestions, e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org.