On the outskirts of Beijing sits a set of unassuming buildings marked ‘X’, for ‘extreme’. Inside the Synergetic Extreme Condition User Facility (SECUF), researchers from all over the world are pushing matter to its limits with extreme magnetic fields, pressures and temperatures, and examining it in new ways with extremely precise resolution in time.
One particularly tantalizing goal of many researchers using this $US220-million toolbox is to discover new superconductors, materials that conduct electricity without resistance. “This kind of combination of extreme conditions offers a very good chance for new discoveries,” says SECUF’s founding director Li Lu, a condensed-matter physicist at the Chinese Academy of Science’s Institute of Physics (IOP) in Beijing.
Understanding the mechanisms that underlie superconductivity is an important step in the global race to finding a material that exhibits this phenomenon at room temperature, instead of under frigid conditions. Such a discovery could open the door to faster computers and cut electricity consumption, among other benefits.
Under extreme conditions, matter exhibits properties that would otherwise remain hidden. For instance, when some ordinary-seeming materials are subjected to high pressures and extreme cold, they become superconductors. But measuring superconductivity can be finicky, because it can show up differently depending on the technique used, says Konstantin Kamenev, a physicist at the University of Edinburgh, UK, who specializes in extreme-conditions engineering and instrumentation. The ability to mix and match such conditions at a single facility allows researchers to characterize their samples more fully and efficiently than they could otherwise. “It’s like a one-stop shop,” says Jinguang Cheng, a condensed-matter physicist at the IOP.
Extreme toolbox
Since September last year, all 22 experimental stations at SECUF have moved to full operation after a one-year trial period. Tucked into a corner of one of SECUF’s brightly lit rooms, Cheng oversees a station that combines a cubic anvil cell — a device that squeezes materials under enormous pressure on six sides — with two superconducting magnets and helium-based cooling systems. The sample-torturing instrument can be used to measure a range of electronic properties and characteristics. Although conventional high-pressure tools, such as diamond anvils, can accommodate samples that are only the width of a human hair, SECUF’s cubic anvil cell can compress larger samples, making it easier to measure electronic properties in finer detail, says Cheng.
He says that he and his colleagues have, in this way, discovered a handful of superconductors, including a rare magnetic one1 and another based on manganese2.
The quantum oscillation station combines two superconducting magnets with ultra-low temperatures. Credit: Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Behind a yellow warning barrier at the other end of the room sits a powerful superconducting magnet. Rui Zhou, a condensed-matter physicist at the IOP, and his colleagues have set up a station that combines the magnet with ultra-low temperatures to perform nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements. The technique tracks the behaviour of atomic nuclei in high magnetic fields. It offers a way of peering into the mechanisms that underlie high-temperature superconductors — those that operate above −195.8 °C.
SECUF’s magnet produces a weaker field — just 26 tesla — than do those at other facilities, such as the record-holding 45 T hybrid magnet, which is partially superconducting, at the US National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL) in Tallahassee, Florida, and the 37 T resistive magnet at France’s National Laboratory for Intense Magnetic Fields in Grenoble, which require a lot of power to run. But it can maintain a stable magnetic field for up to one month instead of a few days or hours, because it guzzles much less power, says Zhou. That makes it possible for researchers to conduct longer experiments on the same sample, he explains.
The cubic anvil cell is located on the back wall, with black and yellow hazard tape. It can accommodate much larger samples than other high-pressure devices.Credit: Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Another magnet system is enabling other types of superconductivity research. Gang Li, a condensed-matter physicist at the IOP, heads a station that combines blisteringly cold temperatures with a 30 T superconducting magnet and a 20 T one to detect quantum oscillations — physical phenomena that are used to map the electronic ‘fingerprint’ of materials. Last July, Alexander Eaton, a condensed-matter physicist at the University of Cambridge, UK, and his colleagues spent two weeks using the station to unpick the electronic properties of an unusual superconductor called uranium ditelluride3. “It was the only place we could do the experiment we wanted to do,” says Eaton.
Mix and match
Other superconductivity researchers are using multiple tools at SECUF. Guanghan Cao, a condensed-matter physicist at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, used the cubic anvil cell and NMR to probe an intriguing chromium-based material he had discovered by accident. Cao and his colleagues spotted hints of superconductivity when they subjected it to high pressures using the cubic anvil cell4. Over at the NMR station, the researchers were also able to catch a glimpse of the compound’s magnetic properties. The ability to measure the material in multiple ways in one location enabled the researchers to conduct a more in-depth study in less time. “That’s really convenient for us,” Cao says.
Superconductivity isn’t the only phenomena researchers are pursuing at SECUF. Some researchers are using ultrafast lasers to study the properties of semiconductors, whereas others are using a range of instruments to hunt down elusive quantum states of matter. The facility is open to domestic and international users alike, and all proposals are considered equally, says Cheng. But the process will be more selective for all researchers this year to give successful applicants more time at each station, he adds.
Although researchers from all over the world are using the facility, Ali Bangura, a condensed-matter physicist at the NHMFL, says that SECUF could give China an edge over other countries in the quest to achieve room-temperature superconductivity. By expanding the scope of measurements on offer in one location, SECUF “substantially increases the likelihood of groundbreaking discoveries”, says Bangura.
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by superconductivity physicist Ranga Dias against his employer, the University of Rochester in New York. In February, a university investigation found that he had committed scientific misconduct by, among other things, fabricating data to claim the discovery of superconductors — materials with zero electrical resistance — at room temperature. Dias filed the lawsuit against the university for allegedly violating his academic freedom and conducting a biased investigation into his work.
Exclusive: official investigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results
On 19 April, Monroe County Supreme Court justice Joseph Waldorf denied Dias’s petitions and dismissed the lawsuit as premature. The matter “is not ripe for judicial review”, Waldorf wrote (see Supplementary information), because, although Rochester commissioned an independent review that found Dias had committed misconduct, it has not yet finished taking administrative action. The university provost has recommended that Dias be fired, but a final decision is still forthcoming.
A spokesperson for the university said Rochester was “pleased” with the justice’s ruling, and reiterated that its investigation was “carried out in a fair manner” and reached a conclusion that it thinks is correct.
Dias did not respond to requests for comment. His lawyer, Morgan Levy, referred Nature’s news team to documents filed with the lawsuit in which Dias responded to the university’s investigation.
Nature’s news team reported on Rochester’s investigation previously: three scientists external to the university conducted a 10-month probe into 16 allegations against Dias and determined that the physicist had committed plagiarism, and data fabrication and falsification related to four scientific papers, including two published in Nature1,2. (Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its journals team.) Normally, the details of the investigation would probably have remained confidential. But in response to Dias’s lawsuit, the university submitted the entire report as a court exhibit, making it public.
Other documents and e-mails from Dias made public owing to the lawsuit reveal more details about the physicist’s attempts to halt the investigation and to cast doubt on former graduate students from his laboratory who had shared concerns with investigators about data in one of the blockbuster Nature papers2, and who later requested its retraction. Nature’s news team spoke about the lawsuit to four of Dias’s former students, who requested anonymity because they were concerned about the negative impact on their careers. They disagree with Dias’s characterization of events in the e-mails submitted to the court. One student described Dias’s attitude as “it’s not me that’s wrong, it’s everyone around me”.
Toxic environment
In March 2023, the National Science Foundation (NSF), which funds US academic research — including much of Dias’s — ordered Rochester to investigate allegations that Dias committed scientific misconduct when he claimed to have discovered room-temperature superconductivity in a material made of carbon, sulfur and hydrogen at room temperature1. This order followed three internal ‘inquiries’ into Dias’s work by the university, which did not evidence of misconduct. Prompted by the NSF, Stephen Dewhurst, the then-interim vice-president for research at Rochester, organized a committee of three external experts to undertake the investigation.
Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception in a rising star’s physics lab
Dias initially appeared pleased with the investigators. After his first interview with them, he sent Dewhurst an e-mail on 16 June 2023, writing that he welcomed the university’s “comprehensive neutral unbiased independent investigation into all the allegations”. Later, his opinion of the investigation would change.
When the investigators interviewed Dias’s graduate students the next month, serious issues came to light, according to court documents: the students said that Dias dismissed their concerns about the veracity of certain data and that he had created a culture of fear in the lab. Speaking to Nature‘s news team, one student says that Dias apparently retaliated against them for reporting concerns to another faculty member at Rochester. The news team reviewed a memo written by the student immediately after the incident. The student recorded Dias as saying that “an adviser is like your parents — you can’t remove them, you’re stuck with them”.
In a 3 August 2023 e-mail to Dias, Wendi Heinzelman, dean of Rochester’s engineering school, told the physicist that his students would be moved to new advisers. Dias objected and expressed concern that the decision would affect the ongoing investigation. “Reassignment of my students has inadvertently conveyed a perception of wrongdoing on my part,” he responded. In that e-mail, Dias blamed the decision on two students he said were biased against him, alleging that one created a toxic environment in the lab and that the other was “a distraction to other students”.
Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by embattled physicist
Nature’s news team showed the e-mail to other former graduate students, who said that the toxic environment was caused by Dias. The students he accused of being biased against him “were not the issue in the group, and they tried their hardest to make it work”, says one of the former students.
In September 2023, five of Dias’s former students decided to ask for a retraction of a Nature paper that claimed that the team had observed room-temperature superconductivity in a lutetium-based material at relatively low pressures2. Dias found out and sent them each a cease-and-desist letter, as previously reported by Nature’s news team. At the same time, the physicist sent his first formal concerns about the investigation committee to the NSF, court documents show.
He alleged bias, conflicts of interest and a lack of expertise on the part of the investigators. Rochester administrators reviewed the claims and, in a letter to the NSF, concluded that the investigation was fair.
Legal trouble
Dias sued the university in December last year, alleging that his academic freedom was violated when he was stripped of his students. He filed another lawsuit in February, first attempting to stop the investigation, then to prevent it from becoming public. A judge denied both requests.
The case was eventually moved to a new justice, Waldorf, who heard arguments from lawyers representing Dias and Rochester in early April. In his decision to dismiss Dias’s lawsuit, Waldorf cited a previous ruling that “absent extraordinary circumstances, courts are constrained not to interject themselves into ongoing administrative proceedings”. These proceedings will determine whether Dias, who does not yet have tenure, will be fired. The final decision rests with Rochester’s board of trustees.
Nature’s news team spoke with scholars about Waldorf’s ruling, which was based on a cut-and-dry precedent. “The decision is unassailable,” says Matthew Finkin, a labour law and academic-freedom scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Scott Gelber, a historian of education at Wheaton College in Norton, Massachusetts, summed up his thoughts: “Academic freedom doesn’t protect academic misconduct.”
Superconductivity has been demonstrated at extremely low temperatures, but it remains elusive at room temperatures.Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory/SPL
Research misconduct is hugely detrimental to science and to society. Defined as “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” by the US Office of Research Integrity, it violates trust in science and can do great harm to the wider public, scientific institutions and especially co-authors and students who had no part in the wrongdoing. In cases involving public funds, it squanders resources that could have been allocated to other research and it can erode lawmakers’ support for science.
Does the scientific community, as a whole, have appropriate processes for reporting, investigating and communicating about instances of potential misconduct? This question is not new. At Nature, we’re asking it again, after two separate studies that we published were subsequently retracted.
Exclusive: official investigation reveals how superconductivity physicist faked blockbuster results
The studies1,2 were originally published in October 2020 and March 2023. The first was retracted in September 2022 and the second in November 2023. The corresponding author on both papers was Ranga Dias, a physicist studying superconductivity at the University of Rochester in New York, and a recipient of grants from the US National Science Foundation (NSF).
The papers by Dias and his co-authors claimed to report room-temperature superconductivity under extremely high pressures, each in different materials. Room-temperature superconducting materials are highly sought after. They could, for example, transform the efficiency of electricity transmission, from the smallest to the largest application. But high-pressure experiments are difficult and replicating them is complex.
Nature initiated an investigative process that resulted in the 2020 paper being retracted after members of the community told the journal they were troubled by aspects of the data being reported. Nature also initiated an investigation into the 2023 paper. However, this article was retracted at the request of most of Dias’s co-authors while the investigation was still ongoing.
Many details about this case came to light thanks to continued questions from the research community, including during post-publication peer review. Much credit must also go to the persistence of science journalists, including members of Nature’s news team (which is editorially independent of Nature’s journal team) and those from other publications.
What can journal editors, funding organizations and institutions that employ researchers learn from such cases? We have the same goal: producing and reporting rigorous research of the highest possible standard. And we need to learn some collective lessons — including on the exchange of information.
The University of Rochester conducted three inquiries, which are a preliminary step to making a decision about whether to perform a formal investigation into scientific misconduct. The inquiries were completed between January and October 2022. Each concluded that such an investigation was not warranted.
Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception in a rising star’s physics lab
Earlier this month, Nature’s news team uncovered a 124-page report on a subsequent confidential investigation, performed at the NSF’s request. In it, a team of reviewers concluded after a ten-month assessment of evidence that it was more likely than not that Dias had committed data fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. The report is dated 8 February 2024, and the determination is regarding the two Nature papers, a 2021 study3 published in Physical Review Letters and a 2022 study4 in Chemical Communications — both of which were also retracted. However, the investigation has not yet officially been made public.
Some researchers have asked why Nature published Dias’s second paper in March 2023, when questions were being asked about the first one. Others have asked why the retraction notices didn’t spell out that there has been misconduct.
It’s important to emphasize that it’s Nature’s editorial policy to consider each submission in its own right. Second, peer review is not designed to identify potential misconduct. The role of a journal in such situations is to correct the scientific literature; it is for the institutions involved to determine whether there has been misconduct, and to do so only after the completion of due process, which involves a systematic evaluation of primary evidence, such as unmodified experimental data.
Access to raw data is fundamental to resolving cases of potential misconduct. It is also something we constantly think about in relation to publishing. Indeed, for certain kinds of data, Nature requires authors to deposit them in external databases before publication. But there must be more the research community — including funders and institutions — can all do to incentivize data sharing.
Another question is whether the matter could have been dealt with more quickly. Nature’s editors have been asking the same question: specifically, could there have been more, or better, communication between journals and institutions once evidence of potential misconduct came to light?
Publish, and be damned…
Last month, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a non-profit organization that represents editors, publishers and research institutions, updated its guidelines on how publishers and universities could communicate better. The guidelines are full of important advice, including that institutions, not publishers, should perform integrity or misconduct investigations. Investigators require access to primary evidence. As employers and grant-givers, institutions are the appropriate bodies to mandate access to unmodified experimental data, correspondence, notebooks and computers and to interview relevant staff members — all essential parts of an investigation.
But often, journals need to start a process that could lead to retracting a study in the absence of an institutional investigation — or while an investigation, or inquiry, is ongoing5. Are cases such as this an opportunity for journals and institutions to discuss establishing channels through which to exchange information, in the interest of expedited outcomes — as part of due process? Nature’s editors would be willing to play a part in such discussions.
Retractions are part of publishing research, and all journals must be committed to retracting papers after due process is completed. Although a paper can be retracted for many reasons, when the cause is potential misconduct, institutions must conduct thorough investigations.
This case is not yet closed. Both the university and the funder need to formally announce the investigation’s results, and what action they intend to take. They should not delay any more than is necessary. When there is credible evidence of potential scientific misconduct, investigations should not be postponed. There is strength in collaborating to solve a problem, and nothing to be ashamed of in preserving the integrity of the scientific record.
Hello Nature readers, would you like to get this Briefing in your inbox free every day? Sign up here.
Physicist Ranga Dias was once a rising star in the field of superconductivity research.Credit: Lauren Petracca/New York Times/Redux/eyevine
Ranga Dias, the physicist at the centre of the room-temperature superconductivity scandal, committed data fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, according to an investigation commissioned by his university. Nature’s news team discovered the bombshell 124-page report in court documents. The report methodically documents how Dias deliberately misled his co-authors, journal editors and the scientific community.
H5N1, a virus that has killed hundreds of millions of wild and domestic birds, is spreading in US dairy cows for the first time. Researchers are closely monitoring the situation to see how the virus is infecting the animals. The overall threat to people remains low, but the outbreak in cattle could allow the virus to spread to humans. “There’s always a worry that viruses will surprise us,” says evolutionary virologist Daniel Goldhill. One dairy worker has been infected and is recovering. The viral strain isolated from the infected person is closely related to strains targeted by a candidate vaccine.
Forensic-science pioneer Edmond Locard, second from right in the front row, and his team at the Lyon crime laboratory around 1930.Credit: Archives municipales de Lyon
A huge photographic archive, saved from mould and neglect, reveals the founding of the world’s first police crime laboratory in France in 1910. The archive of more than 20,000 glass photographic plates includes the personal correspondence of Edmond Locard, a pioneer of forensic science and founder of the lab. Locard is famous for his maxim, “Every contact leaves a trace,” and trace selection remains the foremost challenge of modern forensic science. “There is a movement to look back to the past for guidance as to how to renew the science of policing,” says historian Amos Frappa. (Nature | 6 min read)
Features & opinion
‘Survival of the fittest’ doesn’t require all species to be hardwired for competition, argues evolutionary biologist Jonathan Silvertown in Selfish Genes to Social Beings. His examples, from lichen to pirates, show that cooperation is ubiquitous — although it ultimately evolved for the ‘selfish’ reason that mutual benefits are better than working alone. “If this seems heartless, it’s a reflection of the human tendency to apply human moral frameworks to biological phenomena,” writes reviewer and public health researcher Jonathan Goodman.
Despite kidney disease being very common, and kidney failure being deadly and expensive to treat, awareness of the disease is low. Leaders from the major professional organizations working in kidney health want the World Health Organization to include kidney disease in its list of priority non-communicable diseases that cause premature deaths. Adding it alongside other big killers such as heart disease and cancer will, the authors argue, bring attention to the growing threat, which is particularly dire for people in low- and lower-middle-income countries, who already bear two‑thirds of the world’s kidney-disease burden.
Although only 2% of respondents to Nature’s postdoc survey were based in Africa, their replies offer a tantalizing glimpse of an emerging part of the research workforce. Postdocs in Africa reported among the lowest pay and were three times more likely than respondents elsewhere to have a second job. At the same time, Africa-based postdocs were the most optimistic about their futures: 64% said that they felt positive about their future job prospects, compared with 41% globally. (Nature | 13 min read)
Quote of the day
Charles Darwin wrote to a friend after reading Histoire Naturelle by the French aristocrat Georges-Louis Leclerc. But this wasn’t plagiarism: Leclerc wrote his book 100 years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. A new appraisal of Leclerc credits him with ideas of species change and extinction, and as a pioneer of natural ecology and geological timescales. (The Guardian | 5 min read)
As I write this, the first inklings of the solar eclipse have begun in North America. I’ll have to make do with the NASA live stream, but I’m looking forward to seeing your best photos of the eclipse or related views from the day.
Ranga Dias, the physicist at the centre of the room-temperature superconductivity scandal, committed data fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, according to a investigation commissioned by his university. Nature’s news team discovered the bombshell investigation report in court documents.
The 10-month investigation, which concluded on 8 February, was carried out by an independent group of scientists recruited by the University of Rochester in New York. They examined 16 allegations against Dias and concluded that it was more likely than not that in each case, the physicist had committed scientific misconduct. The university is now attempting to fire Dias, who is a tenure-track faculty member at Rochester, before his contract expires at the end of the 2024–25 academic year.
Superconductivity scandal: the inside story of deception in a rising star’s physics lab
The investigation report (see Supplementary information) and numerous other documents came to light as the result of a lawsuit that Dias filed against the university in December last year. Dias submitted a grievance to Rochester over its decision to remove his students last August, but the university refused to hear the grievance on the grounds that it did “not relate to academic freedom”. The physicist’s lawsuit claims that this response was unreasonable. A university spokesperson declined to comment on the specifics of ongoing litigation and personnel matters, but emphasized that Rochester is “vigorously defending its course of action”.
In March, Nature’s news team uncovered details about how Dias distorted data to make claims about room-temperature superconductivity in two now-retracted papers published in Nature1,2, and how he manipulated his students to keep them in the dark about those data. (Nature’s news and journal teams are editorially independent.) Soon after, the Wall Street Journal reported that Rochester’s investigation found evidence of misconduct.
Now, Nature’s news team can reveal the details of that investigation. Documents filed by Rochester with the Monroe County Supreme Court show that the investigation was ordered by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major funder of US academic research that in 2021 awarded Dias a prestigious US$790,000 CAREER grant. The NSF Office of Inspector General declined to comment to Nature’s news team on the investigation’s findings or the agency’s future actions.
The 124-page investigation report is a stunning account of Dias’s deceit across the two Nature papers, as well as two other now-retracted papers — one in Chemical Communications3 and one in Physical Review Letters (PRL)4. In the two Nature papers, Dias claimed to have discovered room-temperature superconductivity — zero electrical resistance at ambient temperatures — first in a compound made of carbon, sulfur and hydrogen (CSH)1 and then in a compound eventually found to be made of lutetium and hydrogen (LuH)2.
Capping years of allegations and analyses, the report methodically documents how Dias deliberately misled his co-authors, journal editors and the scientific community. A university spokesperson described the investigation as “a fair and thorough process,” which reached the correct conclusion.
Dias did not respond to requests for comment. His lawyer referred Nature’s news team to documents filed with the lawsuit. In one of those, Dias said: “It is imperative to reassert the foundational integrity and scientific validity of our work amidst the criticisms and accusations.”
A trio of inquiries
The NSF-ordered investigation wasn’t the first time Rochester examined possible problems in Dias’s laboratory. Between 2021 and 2022, the university conducted three preliminary ‘inquiries’ into the CSH Nature paper1 — some details of which are now revealed by the investigation report. Any of the inquiries could have decided that a full misconduct investigation was warranted, but none of them did.
The first inquiry was initiated after Jorge Hirsch, a condensed-matter theorist at the University of California, San Diego, sent complaints to Rochester. The university asked three unnamed internal reviewers, and Dias contacted one external reviewer to examine Hirsch’s claims. Information in the report suggests that the external reviewer is Maddury Somayazulu, a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory in Lemont, Illinois.
Hirsch alleged that there were problems with the paper’s magnetic susceptibility data — evidence crucial to Dias’s claim that CSH is a room-temperature superconductor. The inquiry came to the conclusion on 19 January 2022 that there was “no credible evidence to warrant further investigation”.
Students on campus at the University of Rochester in New York.Credit: Libby March/Bloomberg via Getty
The second inquiry was prompted by Dirk van der Marel, editor-in-chief of Physica C, a journal for superconductivity research. Van der Marel sent Rochester his own concerns about the same CSH data on 20 January 2022 — just a day after the first inquiry ended. Another reviewer took up the case and judged no formal investigation was warranted on 6 April of that year. Their work was checked by a second reviewer, who appears to be Russell Hemley, a physicist at the University of Illinois Chicago, based on identifying information in the report. Although the reviewers did not support an investigation, they said that the paper was “verging on misleading due to omission of details”. They recommended that an erratum be applied (none was).
Rochester’s investigation notes that two reviewers — apparently Somayazulu and Hemley — have collaborated with Dias on several papers, including a study5 in 2021 about the properties of CSH. Rochester’s academic misconduct policy states that “no individual who has an unresolved personal, professional or financial conflict of interest … should participate in the proceedings” of an inquiry.
A spokesperson for Argonne denied that Somayazulu was an inquiry reviewer, but did not respond when asked why a footnote in the investigation refers to “Report of Somayazulu_Review of NSF 2020 (CSH) Paper”. Hemley did not clarify whether he was an inquiry reviewer.
Nature‘s journals team conducted its own investigation into the CSH paper using independent reviewers, two of whom found evidence that the magnetic susceptibility data were probably fabricated. When the journal indicated that it would retract the CSH paper, and in response to another complaint from Hirsch, the university conducted a third inquiry. Despite having access to Nature’s findings, the single reviewer assigned to this inquiry — the same anonymous reviewer from the second inquiry — concluded on 19 October 2022 that any oddities in the data could be attributed to how they were processed, and that no investigation was needed.
Rochester’s inquiries “should be ‘Exhibit A’ about how not to run one of these things,” says Peter Armitage, a condensed-matter experimentalist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.
Under investigation
Rochester was finally forced to launch a full investigation to determine misconduct by the NSF. In October 2022, James Hamlin, a physicist at the University of Florida in Gainesville, submitted concerns about Dias’s work to the NSF. These included “data discrepancies that cannot be attributed to data processing”, according to a 16 March 2023 letter from the NSF to Stephen Dewhurst, the then-interim vice-president for research at Rochester.
Within weeks, Dewhurst assembled a committee of three physicists external to Rochester “to ensure that this investigation would be credible”: Marius Millot and Peter Celliers, both at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California; and Marcus Knudson, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by embattled physicist
Nature’s news team asked several superconductivity researchers to review the investigation report. At first, they were concerned by the university’s choice of committee members. The three physicists are specialists in shock-wave physics, not in superconductivity. Millot and Celliers were also co-authors with Dias on a 27-author review paper published earlier this year6.
However, those doubts evaporated when the researchers read the report. “I couldn’t help but be incredibly impressed,” Armitage says. Paul Canfield, a physicist at Iowa State University in Ames, says: “There should be a good German word that’s 50 letters long and is simultaneously ‘impressive’ and ‘depressing’” to describe the report. Brad Ramshaw, a physicist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, concurs. “This is a great sacrifice of their time,” he says. “The whole community should be grateful that we have colleagues who are willing to go to these lengths.”
The three investigators did not respond to requests for comment.
The investigation committee secured records, including data on computer hard drives, e-mails and physical notebooks, in the course of their work. They also conducted interviews with 10 individuals connected with the case, including Dias and some of his former students, and met at least 50 times to deliberate.
‘A very disturbing picture’: another retraction imminent for controversial physicist
Notably, the investigators confirmed previous analyses by van der Marel, Hirsch, Hamlin and Ramshaw — all of whom found apparent evidence that Dias fabricated magnetic susceptibility data in the CSH paper.
The report clarifies the extent of this misconduct: first Dias fabricated CSH data and published it. Then, when its origins came under scrutiny, Dias and his collaborator and co-author Ashkan Salamat, a physicist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), released a set of fabricated raw data.
Questions about discrepancies between the raw and the published data continued to mount, so Dias crafted an explanation — he claimed to have used an elaborate data-processing method for the published data. This provided “a veneer of plausibility, by focusing critics’ attention on background subtraction methods” instead of on the raw data, the investigation committee wrote.
Salamat did not respond to a request for comment.
Fact finding
At any time throughout the investigation, Dias could have dispelled many allegations if he had provided genuine raw data — data taken directly from a measuring instrument and containing details such as timestamps. “The absence of certain raw data files does not inherently indicate their non-existence or suggest any misconduct on my part,” Dias wrote in response to the investigation findings. Yet he promised to deliver raw data multiple times and never did, according to the report.
In several instances, the investigation found, Dias intentionally misled his team members and collaborators about the origins of data. Through interviews, the investigators worked out that Dias had told his partners at UNLV that measurements were taken at Rochester, but had told researchers at Rochester that they were taken at UNLV.
Dias also lied to journals. In the case of the retracted PRL paper4 — which was about the electrical properties of manganese disulfide (MnS2) — the journal conducted its own investigation and concluded that there was apparent fabrication and “a deliberate attempt to obstruct the investigation” by providing reviewers with manipulated data rather than raw data. The investigators commissioned by Rochester confirmed the journal’s findings that Dias had taken electrical resistance data on germanium tetraselenide from his own PhD thesis and passed these data off as coming from MnS2 — a completely different material with different properties (see ‘Odd similarity’). When questioned about this by the investigators, Dias sent them the same manipulated data that was sent to PRL.
Source: James Hamlin
How exactly Dias distorted data was clearest in the report’s findings about the LuH paper2. With the aid of Dias’s former students, the investigation committee pinpointed raw data on the lab’s hard drives. These data showed that Dias frequently made selective omissions to conceal “erratic drops and jumps in the resistance data, the presence of which would undermine the claim of superconducting behavior in LuH”, the investigation committee wrote.
Dias, the investigation committee found, “repeatedly lied” about data during Nature’s review of the paper after concerns came to light. But perhaps the most egregious instance of misconduct, which the report refers to as involving “profuse manipulations” of data, occurred when Dias inverted a set of LuH data so that it demonstrated the Meissner effect — a sharp change in the magnetic properties of a material that is a hallmark of superconductivity. On 27 August 2022, Sachith Dissanayake, a co-author who was then a faculty member working with Dias at Rochester, explained to Dias that the data had been improperly manipulated, but Dias ignored the warning, according to the report. In his response to the report, Dias claimed Dissanayake misunderstood the data. Dissanayake did not respond to a request for comment.
These manipulated data were key to the LuH paper’s acceptance. And the investigation committee concluded that Dias fabricated data “to convince Nature editors and pre-publication referees that LuH exhibits superconductivity at room temperature”.
Previous stories in Physics Magazine and Science reported allegations of serial plagiarism by Dias, including that he copied more than 20% of his 2013 thesis from other sources. The Rochester investigators uncovered another, more recent instance: on 30 July 2020, researchers, including Dias’s colleagues at Rochester, submitted a scientific manuscript7 to the preprint server arXiv. Twelve days later, Dias submitted an NSF grant proposal that included paragraphs copied from that manuscript, as well as two identical figures. That proposal later won Dias the CAREER grant from the agency. In his response to the investigation, Dias admits to “instances where references are inadvertently missed”.
Closing arguments
The investigation committee sent Dias a draft copy of its report on 22 December last year. In a two-part response totalling hundreds of pages, which was revealed in the lawsuit, Dias attacks the expertise and integrity of the investigators. The physicist asserts that the investigators’ approach displays “traits that could sometimes be seen in the realm of conspiracy theories” and that it is “lacking a robust logical foundation”. Dias also claims that Salamat convinced Dias’s former students to oppose him when they sent a letter to Nature asking to retract the LuH paper. The opposite is true: Nature’s news team previously reported that it was the students who initiated the letter.
Why superconductor research is in a ‘golden age’ — despite controversy
Nowhere in the response does Dias provide the raw data requested by the committee. In their final report, the investigators respond to Dias’s accusations, saying that the “invocation of baroque explanations to interpret, and therefore justify, the omission of these data does not alter the Investigation Committee’s reasoning or findings”.
Ultimately, the committee found that the Rochester students and Dissanayake were not culpable, but victims. The committee did not have access to resources at UNLV to clear those researchers, including Salamat, from blame, but it concluded that those parties too were deceived, and did not find “substantial evidence of wrongdoing”.
As a result, the investigators recommended that Dias should not be permitted to teach or to carry out public or privately funded research. They added: “Evidence uncovered in this investigation shows that [Dias] cannot be trusted”.
Hello Nature readers, would you like to get this Briefing in your inbox free every day? Sign up here.
Long-term use of antiretroviral drugs can cause abnormal fat accumulation in people with HIV.Credit: Jose Calvo/SPL
People with HIV could benefit from semaglutide, the blockbuster drug marketed as Wegovy for obesity and Ozempic for diabetes. If early data about the treatment’s effects are confirmed, semaglutide and other drugs like it could become key to controlling the metabolic problems associated with anti-HIV medications. Studies presented last week at a conference suggest it helps people with HIV to lose weight and reduces certain conditions associated with fat accumulation that are especially common in people infected with the virus.
Researchers have launched an initiative calling for the safe and ethical use of protein design. The voluntary effort comes on the heels of reports from lawmakers, think tanks and other organizations exploring the possibility that AI tools — ranging from protein-structure prediction networks such as AlphaFold to large language models such as the one that powers ChatGPT — could make it easier to develop biological weapons, including new toxins or highly transmissible viruses. The new initiative calls for the biodesign community to police itself and for improved screening of DNA synthesis, a key step in making AI-designed proteins, for potentially harmful molecules.
The movie Oppenheimer scooped seven awards at last night’s Oscars. Its portrayal of physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer owes a lot to the science advisers working alongside director Christopher Nolan. Physicist Kip Thorne remembers Oppenheimer as a superb mentor: “He had this amazing ability to grasp things very quickly and see connections, which was a major factor in his success as the leader of the atomic bomb project.” For Robbert Dijkgraaf, a theoretical physicist and the Dutch education minister, the movie got the science just right: “For me, the biggest surprise was that this difficult movie about a difficult topic and a difficult man, shot in a difficult way, became a hit around the world.”
The monster sandworms living on the planet Arrakis in the blockbuster movie Dune and its just-released sequel are pure fiction, but they share traits with the worms that live on our planet, says worm palaeontologist Luke Parry. Some giant worms grow 2–3 metres long and can ambush their prey, feeding off octopus and squid. Other worms have teeth for dragging themselves through burrows, or for catching prey. And worms played a key role in the Cambrian explosion, notes Parry: “Worms on Earth were responsible for burrowing into sediments over half a billion years ago and changing marine ecosystems forever.”
The ambush predator called the bobbit worm (Eunice aphroditois) can reach 3 metres long.Credit: Constantinos Petrinos/Nature Picture Library
Features & opinion
In 2020, physicist Ranga Dias claimed to have discovered the first room-temperature superconductor — a material that would not require any cooling to conduct electricity with zero resistance — in a landmark paper published in Nature. It was retracted. Then came a fresh claim in another Nature paper, in 2023 — also later retracted. Now, an investigation by Nature’s news team (which is editorially independent of its journal teams) reveals how Dias distorted the evidence for room-temperature superconductivity — and indicates that he concealed information from his students, manipulated them and shut them out of key steps in the research and review process. The scandal raises questions about how universities, journals and funders deal with research misconduct.
Events such as the resignation of Harvard president Claudine Gay and the suicide of university administrator Antoinette Candia-Bailey came as no surprise to Nicola Rollock, who studies social policy and race. “Black female scholars and staff members continue to face exclusion and challenges in academia that often remain ignored,” writes Rollock. She outlines concrete actions that individual academics and institutions can take to demonstrate solidarity with Black women, including paying fairly, “citing our work and championing us”.
Researchers who set up a confusing puzzle box with a sweet reward revealed that bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) can learn skills from others that they could not acquire alone — a behaviour thought to be unique to people. After showing that no lone bee could work out how to solve the puzzle, the scientists painstakingly trained nine bees how to do it. The trained bees became demonstrators for other bees, who watched, learnt and won their reward.
Pathologist Anthony Epstein was working on chicken viruses when he learnt of a mysterious childhood cancer during a talk he almost skipped. It led to the discovery, with his doctoral student Yvonne Barr, of the Epstein–Barr virus: the first virus able to cause cancer in people. Epstein died in February, aged 102. (BBC | 5 min listen, from 2014)
On Friday, our penguin puzzle took us to the gleaming Ziquejie Rice Terraces in Hunan, China, where Leif Penguinson was hiding. Did you find the penguin? When you’re ready, here’s the answer.
