SCIENCE science.org 10 JUNE 2022 • VOL 376 ISSUE 6598 1145The goal is to empower communities to
demand their rights and to “motivate col-
leagues to work in a different way,” says
Constanza de la Fuente, a Chilean ancient
DNA researcher at the University of Chicago
and a member of Ciencia y Comunidades.
“To approach the communities not only say-
ing, ‘This is an informed consent form, sign
it and give me your sample,’ but trying to
generate a dialogue with them.”
Although they acknowledge that dialogue
is needed, some Chilean researchers are
wary. In other countries, including Canada,
New Zealand, and the United States, Indig-
enous communities have asked geneticists
to delay work, change research questions,
keep data private, and not publish results.
“One can’t take absolutist [attitudes],” such
as insisting that scientists must keep all data
private, says Lucía Cifuentes, a medical ge-
neticist at the University of Chile (UCh ), San-
tiago. “Science needs creative freedom.”
Publishing restrictions would be “censor-
ship,” says Ricardo Verdugo, a human popu-
lation geneticist also at UCh Santiago. But he
thinks a new paradigm is needed. Indigenous
communities are “the first ones that have the
right to have a voice,” he says. “What to ask,
why ask it, and how I’m going to interpret
[and] communicate it, is something that ab-
solutely requires [their] opinion.”
For others, now is the moment for dras-
tic measures. “Other scientists might [ques-
tion] me. But, for me, ethics comes first,” says
Macarena Fuentes, a human population
geneticist at the University of Tarapacá,
Arica. “For there to be a transition, extreme
changes must occur.”
In Pu e r t o E d é n , f e d u p w i t h w h at t h e y s aw
as one-sided interactions, the community
created a protocol for scientific research
within its territory. Scientists must meet
with a council to explain their research,
what they’ll do with the results, and how
Puerto Edén will benefit. They must also re-
spect Kawésqar culture, including honoring
taboos against visiting sacred places. And
they must give something back, whether a
simple acknowledgement, a share in any fi-
nancial rewards, or co-authorship. The plan
may be exceptional in Chile at the moment,
but many hope it will become the norm in
the future.
The protocol isn’t a rejection of science,
Tonko Huenucoy explains. The community
even plans to build a science center and
field station to attract research to the com-
munity. But they want to make sure that
it’s done for and with the Kawésqar, she
says. So “[our] voices are included from the
very beginning.” j
Emiliano Rodríguez Mega is a journalist
in Mexico City.
Controversial botanist cleared
Report sees “insufficient evidence” of misconduct
RESEARCH INTEGRITYW
hen eight scientists filed a mis-
conduct complaint against promi-
nent botanist Steven Newmaster
with the University of Guelph (UG)
in June 2021, they thought they
had an ironclad case. Their claim
that Newmaster, whose work profoundly in-
fluenced how dietary supplements are tested
and marketed, had made up or plagiarized
data in three papers was “an entirely cred-
ible and well-founded allegation,” says co-
signatory Kenneth Thompson, a postdoc at
Stanford University.
But an investigative committee at UG
disagrees. Newmaster “displayed a pattern
of poor judgement,” his conduct was “suspi-
cious,” and there were “many shortcomings”
in his work, panel chairman John Walsh, a
business professor at UG, wrote in a 1 June
letter to the complainants. But there was
“insufficient evidence” to find
Newmaster guilty of misconduct.
“ G i v e n t h e e v i d e n c e o f d a t a f a l -
sification that was assembled, I
was very surprised at the conclu-
sion,” says evolutionary biologist
Paul Hebert, a co-signatory to
the complaint. Hebert directs
UG’s Centre for Biodiversity
Genomics and pioneered DNA barcoding,
a technique for identifying organisms from
short snippets of DNA that is central to
Newmaster’s work.
But Thomas Braukmann, a former postdoc
at the UG center who is now at Public Health
Ontario, says the findings are “disappointing
but not surprising.” “I don’t think [UG] took
the allegations seriously or put the commit-
tee together in good faith,” says Braukmann,
who was not involved in the case but studied
Newmaster’s papers at Science’s request. “We
need a better system in Canada to handle
misconduct concerns.” Walsh and UG did not
respond to requests for comment.
Newmaster made headlines with a 2013
BMC Medicine study reporting that many
herbal supplements didn’t contain the la-
beled ingredients and some had toxic con-
taminants. The paper propelled him to global
fame as a testing expert. His own companies
and a nonprofit group at UG raised millions
of dollars by certifying supplements, canna-
bis, and other comestibles.
Thompson was the first to level accu-sations against Newmaster, in 2020. He
claimed Newmaster made up and plagiarized
the data for a study testing the ability of DNA
barcoding to identify species in a Canadian
forest, which they published together in 2014,
when Thompson was a UG undergraduate.
After the university dismissed his complaint,
the group of eight sent a more elaborate com-
plaint letter. It fingered not only Thompson’s
paper—which the journal Biodiversity and
Conservation retracted in October 2021—but
also the supplements study and a 2013 pa-
per using DNA barcoding to study woodland
caribou diets. Newmaster’s co-authors have
requested retractions of those articles as well.
For now, BMC Medicine is investigating
the allegations about the supplements ar-
ticle and the Canadian Journal of Forest Re-
search has added an Expression of Concern
to the caribou paper. Newmaster has denied
the charges. “I have never engaged in any
unethical activity or academic misconduct,”
he wrote in an official reply ob-
tained by Science.
An investigation by Science
(3 February, p. 484) revealed
many other cases in which
Newmaster appeared to ma-
nipulate or fabricate data, pla-
giarize, and invent elements of
his academic record. He did
not respond to requests for comment for
the Science story, and the panel did not ad-
dress the issues it raised. UG could take up
to several months to issue a final decision.
Newmaster’s accusers had been worried
the investigation might not be rigorous, given
the panel’s lack of expertise in genomics. In
addition to Walsh, it included Jeff Wichtel,
dean of UG’s veterinary college, and Cynthia
Fekken, a psychologist from Queen’s Univer-
sity. Walsh’s letter says they relied on an in-
dependent expert witness, whom he did not
name. The letter notes that a “key factor” in
the panel’s finding that it was impossible to
“definitely establish” misconduct was the “ab-
sence of records, including raw data.”
That’s a particularly frustrating argument,
Thompson says. “That was the essence of our
complaint. We knew they wouldn’t be able to
find records. Our complaint alleged that Prof.
Newmaster falsified his work and never had
the data to back it up.” jThis story was supported by the Science Fund
for Investigative Reporting.By Charles Piller“I was very
surprised at the
conclusion.”
Paul Hebert,
University of Guelph