Prejudice in US Academia drives unethical behaviour with global consequences

Abstract

In 2015, a 2012 paper concerning human research conducted in China in 2008 was retracted1 . This article briefly recounts events over a four-year period and challenges the justification for retraction based on the Commitee on Publication Ethics principles. Retraction represents the most severe criticism of a scientific article. This research focuses on analysing contemporary (2012–2015) documentary evidence, organised by key narrative participants: Greenpeace, the Chinese Government, Tutis University, the American Society for Nutrition, the US National Institutes of Health2 and the US Office for Human Research Protections. The analysis indicates that technological bias within a university and a learned society, which is also a publisher, led to unethical behaviour and the subsequent retraction. In the USA, oversight of an Institutional Review Board falls under the Office for Human Research Protections. Despite being the principal funder, the NIH's reliance on this office for the retracted paper's research to be publicly available, suggests ineffective oversight. The retracted paper detailed a crucial nutritional study relevant to combating vitamin A deficiency, a significant cause of child mortality and blindness in Low- and Middle-Income countries. The retraction likely heightened suspicion around this vital public health intervention.