paris

An inquiry by France's ministry of national education, research and technology into the activities of a laboratory of INSERM, the national biomedical research agency (see Nature 391, 519; 1998), is likely to take a new turn following a request from two scientists that their names be removed from a key paper based on work at the laboratory that is being considered for publication.

In the letter dated 17 February to the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the scientists from the INSERM Laboratory of Nutrition, Lipoprotein Metabolism and Atherosclerosis at the University of Rennes 1 ask that their names be removed from a paper entitled “Leptin acutely regulates postprandial lipemic responses in ob/ob and db/db mice” and from any revised versions.

“The main point is that we disagree with the use and misinterpretation of our data by Mr B. Bihain [the director of the laboratory],” wrote the two researchers. “Moreover, despite the fact that we are ⃛ authors, we did not take part in the [editing] of the paper and we did not sign any document for this submission.”

In an even blunter letter sent in January to Jacqueline Godet, director of life sciences at the ministry and a participant in the inquiry, the authors say that they are unable to accept being co-authors of “incorrect” results. “Now that these falsified data may appear in an international publication, casting doubts on our scientific integrity, we have taken the liberty of asking you what we should do,” they write, enclosing a series of annexes detailing the conduct of research within the laboratory.

Nick Cozzarelli, the chief editor of PNAS, says the paper is at the first stage of its review process, which is conducted by a member of the academy, in this case Richard Havel from the School of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. The paper has so far received favourable reviews from referees, although it has not yet been submitted to the editorial board.

“Of course, we would never leave on a paper the names of individuals who wish to have them removed,” says Cozzarelli. He adds that, without wishing to prejudge a paper that has not yet been received by the editorial board, “given the history of the case, it is highly likely that the board would re-evaluate the suitability of the paper if it gets to us”.