Jacques Robert

SummaryHeterozygous 4.1 hereditary elliptocytosis results from the absence of one haploid set of protein 4.1, a major component of the red cell skeleton. Two successive epidemiological investigations revealed fifteen probands in the French Northern Alps. The frequency of this disease seems to be very high in four small villages isolated in the Aravis mountains. The genealogical study shows that eleven probands share common ancestors who lived eight or ten generations ago in these villages. Thus there was probably a founder effect from one pair of ancestors, strengthened by endogamy. In contrast, four probands originate from another area and are not genealogically related. Recent results in molecular genetics support the present data.

BackgroundThe practice of clinical research is strictly regulated by law. During submission and review processes, compliance of such research with the laws enforced in the country where it was conducted is not always correctly filled in by the authors or verified by the editors. Here, we report a case of a single institution for which one may find hundreds of publications with seemingly relevant ethical concerns, along with 10 months of follow-up through contacts with the editors of these articles. We thus argue for a stricter control of ethical authorization by scientific editors and we call on publishers to cooperate to this end.MethodsWe present an investigation of the ethics and legal aspects of 456 studies published by the IHU-MI (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection) in Marseille, France.ResultsWe identified a wide range of issues with the stated research authorization and ethics of the published studies with respect to the Institutional Review Board and the approval presented. Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, samples, and countries of investigation were different. Thirty-nine (39) did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings. We thus contacted the journals that published these articles and provide their responses to our concerns. It should be noted that, since our investigation and reporting to journals, PLOS has issued expressions of concerns for several publications we analyze here.ConclusionThis case presents an investigation of the veracity of ethical approval, and more than 10 months of follow-up by independent researchers. We call for stricter control and cooperation in handling of these cases, including editorial requirement to upload ethical approval documents, guidelines from COPE to address such ethical concerns, and transparent editorial policies and timelines to answer such concerns. All supplementary materials are available.