I wouldn’t blame someone if they thought Italy was a scientifically contentious society, given the controversies involving scientists, earthquakes and olive trees. The latest challenge involves papers on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). But when a paper is cited in a legislative body, I don’t think Italy has exclusivity on given that research additional scrutiny.
The facts, as Nature describes them, are as follows. Three papers from a lab at the University of Naples were cited in a July 2015 hearing on GMOs in the Italian Senate. The papers focused on experiments with goats kids whose mothers were fed genetically modified soya-bean meal. The papers contend that fragments of the genetic material inserted in the soya can migrate into the mother’s milk and influence the development of the kids.
Following the hearing Italian Senator Elena Cattaneo, who is also a neuroscientist at the University of Milan (let that last part sink in for a bit), reviewed the papers and noted what appeared to problems with the data presented. She commissioned a biomedical consultancy firm to conduct a forensic analysis of the research, which concluded that the papers contained images that were manipulated and/or reused. The firm forwarded its results to the relevant journals (in September) and the University of Naples (in November). The university launched its own investigation and Federico Infascelli, the head of the lab that produced the papers, is keeping quiet until the university investigation is concluded.
However, confidential details of the investigation were leaked to the press, and one journal, according to Retraction Watch, has retracted one of the papers. That journal, Food and Nutrition Science, cited duplication of data from a previously published paper. Plagiarism is not the same as data manipulation, but depending on what is copied and why, copying can certainly contribute to conclusions that don’t match the data. Retraction Watch, in its analysis of relevant Italian news reports, notes that the retraction is connected to the investigation(s), and that .
The investigation continues, though the leaking of information may complicate matters. Infascelli will likely have a response once the results of the investigation are out, and the use of his research in a government hearing may add to any penalties he faces from the university.