How one researcher's investigation uncovered extensive data fabrication in a high-profile Science publication and what it reveals about weaknesses in scientific self-correction
In 2009, a groundbreaking paper titled "Reactome Array" promised to revolutionize how we understand chemical reactions in living cells. Published in the prestigious journal Science, it quickly gained attention for its ambitious claims and innovative methodology. Yet, within a year, this same paper would become a landmark case of scientific misconduct—one that exposed troubling weaknesses in science's self-correcting mechanisms. When the journal issued an editorial "expression of concern" about potential "errors," one skeptical researcher refused to accept the vague explanation. His forensic investigation would reveal not simple mistakes, but extensive data fabrication, triggering a retraction and raising urgent questions about research integrity that still resonate today 5 .
Paper published in Science
Expression of concern issued
Authors involved
This case, known informally as the "Doubting Thomas" affair, represents more than just an isolated case of fraud. It illustrates the complex challenges facing modern science when research integrity systems fail. As we'll explore, this case demonstrates the crucial difference between merely following rules and embodying the true spirit of scientific inquiry—what experts call 'thick' versus 'thin' research integrity 1 .
The reactome array paper first attracted skepticism due to profound "errors" in chemistry that seemed too fundamental for a team of experienced researchers. The inconsistencies were so significant that many readers questioned whether they could possibly be genuine mistakes. Dr. Thomas Hettinger, the "Doubting Thomas" at the center of our story, noted that the errors were "so profound that many readers expressed doubt that they were really errors, but part of an elaborate hoax" 5 .
What began as skepticism transformed into a full forensic investigation when Hettinger turned his attention to the paper's Supporting Online Material. Rather than accepting the authors' explanations or Science's vague "expression of concern," he conducted a meticulous analysis of the mass spectrometry data contained in the supplemental materials—the very evidence that should have supported the paper's claims 5 .
Hettinger's approach serves as a masterclass in scientific detective work. His analysis focused on the mass spectrometry data that underpinned the study's findings, examining this digital evidence with meticulous care 5 :
He identified telltale signs of improper spreadsheet manipulations across thousands of data values, suggesting automated fabrication rather than experimental recording.
He checked the reported molecular mass values against established scientific databases and found they didn't correspond to known chemical realities.
He discovered impossibly repetitive deviations between reported and expected molecular mass values—patterns that would never occur in genuine experimental data due to natural variations in measurement.
Most damningly, Hettinger's forensic analysis found "no evidence of real mass spectrometry data" in the supporting materials. Every piece of evidence pointed toward fabrication rather than error or poor technique 5 .
As the investigation unfolded, the Ethics Committee of CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas) found itself in a challenging position. The case reached them shortly after the committee's formation, "even before its rules of procedure were approved," as member Pere Puigdomènech later explained 3 .
The paper involved 18 authors from at least five different institutions across four countries
It was a multidisciplinary collaboration spanning organic chemistry to microbiology
The work had high-profile supporters, including a Nobel Prize winner who "strongly defended the results"
Despite these challenges, an external expert committee assembled by CSIC reached conclusions "very similar to those indicated by Dr. Hettinger" 3 .
Both CSIC and Science ultimately agreed to retract the paper, but their handling of the case drew criticism. The retraction was issued based on "skepticism" due to "errors" in chemistry—without acknowledging the evidence of outright fabrication that Hettinger had uncovered 5 .
Most troublingly, neither institution showed interest in "having an independent investigation determining how the paper came to be written, reviewed and published" 5 . This failure to pursue full accountability represented what Hettinger termed a "daunting signal that there is an impending crisis in research integrity and science journalism."
This case illustrates a crucial framework for understanding research integrity. According to recent scholarship, we can distinguish between two value-schemas in science 1 :
| Aspect | Thick Ethos of Integrity | Thin Rules of Integrity |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Internalized ethical commitment | External rules and metrics |
| Focus | Character and professional identity | Compliance with requirements |
| Motivation | Intrinsic commitment to truth | External rewards and punishments |
| Application | Contextual judgment | Standardized procedures |
| Exemplified by | Hettinger's investigative rigor | CSIC's procedural limitations |
The "thick ethos" represents the internalized commitment to scientific values that Hettinger exemplified in his forensic investigation.
The institutions appeared stuck in a "thin" approach focused on procedural compliance without pursuing the deeper truth 1 .
The reactome array case offers several crucial lessons for the scientific community:
Hettinger's forensic analysis demonstrates the value of examining supporting data, not just published conclusions.
Retracting a paper isn't sufficient; institutions must investigate how misconduct occurred and prevent recurrences.
Effective research integrity requires both clear rules (thin) and cultivated ethical commitment (thick) 1 .
| Component | Function | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Education & Training | Develop researchers' ethical reasoning | Path2Integrity learning cards, ORI videos 7 |
| Clear Policies | Establish standards and procedures | Authorship guidelines, data management policies |
| Transparent Processes | Enable scrutiny and accountability | Open data, open peer review 1 |
| Ethical Leadership | Model and reinforce integrity values | Institutional commitment, mentor training 1 |
The "Doubting Thomas" reactome array investigation reveals both the vulnerabilities and resilience of modern science. While the case exposed concerning institutional failures, it also demonstrated the power of individual scientific rigor and skepticism. Hettinger's forensic work exemplifies the "thick ethos" of research integrity—the internalized commitment to truth that transcends mere rule-following.
As research becomes increasingly globalized and competitive, maintaining this ethos requires both institutional systems and individual courage. The essential tension between "thick" ethical commitment and "thin" compliance mechanisms must be continually negotiated 1 .
By learning from cases like the reactome array, supporting robust integrity systems, and cultivating ethical researchers, we can work toward a scientific culture where such dramatic interventions become increasingly unnecessary.
The legacy of the Doubting Thomas case reminds us that science's ultimate integrity lies not in its prestigious publications or institutional reputations, but in the relentless commitment to truth exemplified by skeptical investigators willing to ask difficult questions.
References will be manually added to this section.