WORLD SCIENCE

"Long before it's in the papers"
March 15, 2006

Misconduct claim fuels clash among “wrist-walker” researchers

March 2, 2006
By Jack Lucentini
World Science

In a surprise twist to the already bizarre case of a syndrome whose victims walk on all fours, claims of research misconduct have fueled a bitter dispute among the scientists studying it.

Special Report   Related stories: * Scientists to probe ethical complaint over “hand-walkers” research (March 15) * Reverse human evolution plausible, testable, U.S. biologist says (March 6) * Misconduct accusation fuels clash of  “wrist-walker” researchers (March 2) * Claim of reversed human evolution sparks skepticism, interest (Feb. 27) * “Backward evolution” spawns ape-like people (Feb. 21)

The clash stems in part merely from differing theories on the condition, which the researchers say might shed light on human origins, and which one terms a possible “devolution.”

But intellectual skirmish has itself devolved into raw personal battle, pitting a relatively little-known Turkish researcher against three internationally known U.K. scientists.

Five siblings from a Turkish family never learned to walk on two legs. They are said by some researchers to get around quite well on all fours. (Credit: Uner Tan)

He claims that after he invited them to study the syndrome with him in Turkey, they “stole” his credit for discovering it, sold the story for an upcoming BBC documentary and—worst—paid the victims’ family to stop cooperating with him and other researchers.

Since all known cases of the mutation came from that family, this stopped his research, he wrote in an email: “They actually bought the family.”

Two experts in research ethics contacted by World Science said such a payment sounds ethically dubious. A third said it might be wrong, or just rude, depending on the details of the case.

Nicholas Humphrey, one of the U.K. scientists, declined to discuss the alleged payment, citing confidentiality agreements related to the documentary.

But he denied having usurped credit, saying he duly acknowledged the Turkish researcher, Uner Tan. A published paper by Humphrey notes Tan’s invitation and says Tan conducted initial studies on the affected people, whom Humphrey dubbed “wrist-walkers.”

Humphrey, of the London School of Economics, added that the syndrome’s real discoverer seems to have been not Tan but another scientist, Osman Demirhan, who didn’t answer emails from World Science.

Jemima Harrison of Passionate Productions in Marlborough, U.K., who directed the documentary and others for the BBC, also declined to discuss the dispute. The film is to appear March 17, she said.

While Humphrey may be dealing with a misconduct claim, Tan is on the defensive for another reason: his science. He has raised controversial hypotheses on the syndrome—that it represents “backward evolution” or “devolution,” and other still more unusual concepts—provoking deep skepticism, even ridicule.

“Is this a hoax?” asked Thomas Suddendorf, a psychologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, after seeing a paper by Tan from the March issue of the International Journal of Neuroscience. Humphrey claimed Tan’s bizarre theories are why an initially friendly working relationship between the two began fraying.

Tan, of Cukurova University Medical School in Adana, Turkey, answered the criticism by saying reverse evolution is well studied. For instance, U.S. scientists wrote in the Oct. 2003 issue of the research journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution: “Evolution in reverse is a widespread phenomenon in biology; however, many researchers are only just beginning to take notice” of its importance.

Even more people will notice the wrist-walkers if the BBC documentary airs as planned. But Tan is not happy with how this notice has been arranged.

He wrote in an email that Humphrey’s team, besides selling what Tan called his discovery, apparently paid the wrist-walkers’ Turkish family to turn away other researchers who had been studying them. The family, which is poor, got 1,000 euros (about $1,200 US) and newly installed water and electric service, Tan wrote.

There was no word on who would pay any future bills in such an arrangement, nor on who might have paid for the rest of it. Humphrey’s paper says Trinity College in Cambridge, U.K., helped fund the research.

One scientific ethics expert said a deal such as the one Tan described might be unethical, or simply rude, depending on the details of the case. 

“It might be a matter of research etiquette,” and nothing worse, wrote Jonathan Moreno, who directs the University of Virginia’s Center for Biomedical Ethics in Charlottesville, Va. From the family’s standpoint, “There’s no obligation to be in research at all,” thus no requirement to stay in a particular study.

But two other experts said they would seriously question such a transaction.

“I’m suspicious all over the place,” said Arthur L. Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics in Philadelphia. He said such a deal should have been pre-reviewed by one of the ethics panels that research institutions appoint for such purposes. 

Humphrey wouldn’t say whether that occurred. His two co-authors in the research project didn’t answer emails.

Payments to research participants are normal, Caplan said, but must be vetted to ensure they’re neither unfairly small, nor too large: “You’re not supposed to bribe people into being subjects.”

He added that participants should have advocates to advise them of their rights and the risks, such as the possibility that they might become subjects of a media circus. Humphrey’s paper says a friend advised the family.

Michael Kalichman, director of the Research Ethics Program at the University of California, San Diego, wrote in an email that this sort of transaction generally “wouldn’t be right in terms of the protection of research subjects and it certainly wouldn’t be right in terms of the sharing of research knowledge.”

* * *

WORLD SCIENCE

WORLD SCIENCE