UBC researchers pull paper linking vaccine component to autism after data alleged to be manipulated

Researchers from the University of British Columbia areretracting theirscientific paperlinking aluminum in vaccines to autism in mice, because one of the co-authors claimsfigures published in the study were deliberately altered before publication an issuehe says he realized after allegations of data manipulation surfaced online.

The professor also told CBC News there'sno way to know"why" or "how" the figures were allegedly contorted,ashe claimsoriginal data cited in the study is inaccessible, which would bea contravention of the university's policy around scientific research.

The paperlooked at the effects of aluminum components invaccinesonimmune response in a mouse's brain. Itwas published in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry on Sept. 5.

Co-authored by Dr. Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic, it reported aluminum-triggered responses "consistent with those in autism." Shaw said he and Tomljenovicdrew their conclusions fromdata that was "compiled" and "analyzed" for the paper, rather than raw data.

However, subsequent scrutiny hasraised questions about the validity of the data, with one doctor calling the paper"anti-vaccine pseudoscience."

The allegations werepublished last week on Retraction Watch, a site that reports on withdrawn papers as "a window into the scientific process."

By the middle of September, commenters on PubPeer a database where users can examineand comment on published scientific papers pointed out that figures in the study appeared to have been altered,andin one caselifted directly from a 2014 studyalso authored by Shaw and Tomljenovic.

Shaw, a professor at UBC's department of ophthalmology, said he and the lab ran their own analysis of the figures in question after seeing allegations from PubPeeron Sept. 24. He said he requested aretraction from the journal within twodays and notified the university.

"It appears as if some of the images in mostly what were non-significant results had been flipped," Shaw told CBCon Thursday. "We don't know why, we don't know how but there was a screw-up, there's no question about that."

Shaw saidthe labcan't confirm how the figures were allegedly alteredbecausehe claimsoriginal data needed for comparison isno longer at theUBC laboratory.

"We don't think that the conclusions are at risk here, but because we don't know, we thought it best to withdraw," the researchersaid.

Asked howthe seemingly wonky figures weren't caught before publication, Shaw said it was "a good question."

"We were always under the impression that, based on our viewing of the original data a couple years ago and our subsequent analysis of these data, that everything was fine," he said. "One double-checks this at various stages in the process, but by the time you've looked at them enough times and done the various analyses on them, you do tend to believe they're right.

"When you look at these kinds of [data], unless you look at them under very, very high power and magnify them 20 times which no one does, by the way you would not necessarily see that there was anything untoward," the professorsaid.

Original data taken overseas, Shaw claims

Shaw claims the original data is in China, with an analyst who worked on the paper.

The professor claimed the analyst told him the data are "stuckthere."

"It's like 'the dog ate my homework.' What are you going to do?"

He noted that, even if the original data are recovered, he thinks "this paper is dead" for credibility reasons.

University policy dictates that original data must remain with the labfor at least five years after it's collected. In this case, the data should stayat the UBC labuntil 2018.

The university told CBCit won't be commenting on the retraction or the allegations of removed lab data.

The analyst's lawyer did not comment on the allegations surrounding the data in a statement to CBC, saying it was "a matter between UBC and Dr. Shaw."

Reached by email on Friday, co-author Tomljenovicsaidshe agreed to the retraction but saidshe "had nothing to do either with collecting or analyzing any of the actual data." She declined further comment.

Alleged data manipulation 'appalling,' expertsays

Dr. Michael Gardam, an associate professor of medicine and infectiousdiseases at the University of Toronto, looked at the paper and the allegations and saidthere seems to be "pretty clear evidence that data has been falsified" even if the lab team doesn't have the material toconfirm. He called it "appalling."

"I've run[data] like that. They don't change themselves, and the photos don't change themselves,"Gardamtold CBCon Friday. "The images have been manipulated, according to what I've seen, and I'd argue [Shaw] clearly agrees with that because he's actually retracting the paper."

Pastretractions, vaccine documentary

Gardam noted that another scientific paper Shaw worked on on the topic of vaccines was retracted in 2016.

The article, published in the journalVaccine, questioned the safety of the HPV vaccine Gardasil.

The paper was pulled "due to serious concerns regarding the scientific soundness of the article" and "seriously flawed" methodology, according to the journal.

Shawwas one of the eightco-authorson the study,but he distanced himself from the project on Thursday.

"I was not directly involvedexcept for some editorial comments at the early stages of the manuscript," he said.

The paper wasrepublished by another journal after furtherreviewby the authors.

Shaw was alsofeaturedin The Greater Good,a 2013 documentary looking at U.S. vaccine programs. The film's website listedthe professoras a doctor"with concerns about vaccines."

When it comes to this latest UBC study, Gardam said the university is going to needthe original data if it determines an investigation is required.

Shaw said he's likely finished working on papers concerning vaccines after this retraction.

"I'm honestly not sure at this point that I want to dabble in [vaccines] anymore," he said."We have some projects that are ongoing that have been funded that we feel duty-bound to complete that are on this topic. Frankly, I doubt if I will do it again after that."

CBCalso asked the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry for comment and did not hear back by deadline.