Stem cell research found to be flawed

The scientist said it was 'an honest mistake.'
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL STAR TRIBUNE
Five years ago, a groundbreaking University of Minnesota study found that a type of adult stem cell in mice could have as much potential to treat disease as those taken from embryos. The research made headlines around the world.
But now both the university and the lead scientist, Dr. Catherine Verfaillie, acknowledge that part of the study was flawed.
The university took the unusual step of conducting an inquiry into the 2002 study last summer after questions were raised by a British magazine, New Scientist, about some of the published data. The magazine disclosed the incident in an article published last week.
An expert panel convened by the university concluded that a process used to identify the cells was "significantly flawed, and that the interpretations based on these data, expressed in the manuscript, are potentially incorrect."
Her response
Verfaillie, who has an international reputation in stem cell research, called the problem "an honest mistake" and said it did not affect the study's conclusions about the potential of adult stem cells.
But the disclosure comes at a time of growing skepticism in the scientific community about the power of this kind of adult stem cell, in part because others have had only limited success replicating her study.
Verfaillie's research was heralded by social conservatives who have pinned their hopes on adult stem cells as an alternative to using embryonic cells, which they oppose on moral grounds.
At the same time, Verfaillie's work had cemented the reputation of the University of Minnesota as a major force in the world of stem cell research.
Verfaillie, 49, ran the university's stem cell institute from 1999-2006 and now heads stem cell research at Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium, while remaining on the University of Minnesota faculty.
A closer look
About a year ago, Peter Aldhous, the San Francisco bureau chief of New Scientist magazine, decided to take a closer look at Verfaillie's work. At the time, he was writing about problems plaguing stem cell research.
Aldhous said he was intrigued with Verfaillie's 2002 study, which appeared in the journal Nature, because "it was a remarkable and exciting finding."
He said he wondered why no one else had been able to show, as she did, that a stem cell from the bone marrow of adult mice could turn into a wide range of other tissues, such as brain and muscle cells.
Aldhous and a colleague started combing through Verfaillie's published studies. And, he said, they found that she had published some of the same data twice, labeled differently, in two journals, including the Nature article.
"I wrote to Catherine saying that we'd noticed these duplications and asking if she was able to explain them," Aldhous said in a telephone interview.
Surprised, Verfaillie said she promptly notified the university. "I pride myself on careful presentation of data and was disappointed at myself," she wrote in her e-mail to the Star Tribune.