By Aylin Woodward

The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, one of the nation's top cancer centers, has agreed to pay $15 million to settle fraud allegations, including its scientists' use of inaccurate or altered data and images in grant-funded biomedical research.

Those images and data were also used in grant applications that resulted in federal funding for additional research, according to the U.S. Justice Department and Dana-Farber.

In a civil settlement, made public Tuesday, the Harvard Medical School affiliate resolved a lawsuit contending some of its scientists used National Institutes of Health grant funding to support publishing more than a dozen articles in scientific journals between 2014 and 2024 that contained misrepresented data and images. Some publications and grant applications included duplicated images, or images that were rotated, magnified or stretched.

"There is no place in scientific research, particularly cancer research, for fraud, waste and abuse, and my office will continue to investigate institutions, no matter how prestigious, to ensure that research data is not tainted and that taxpayer funds are used appropriately," U.S. Attorney Leah B. Foley said Tuesday in a statement.

Dana-Farber is a Boston-based cancer treatment and research center with locations in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. It receives grant funding through the NIH, which is funded by taxpayer dollars. Though it is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, the NIH has limited resources.

Neither the settlement, nor the related lawsuit, alleged any impact on clinical trials or patient care, according to Dana-Farber.

"Over the past two years and beginning prior to this investigation, we developed and implemented a number of initiatives to enhance our research integrity efforts, improve data hygiene, and prevent avoidable errors in scientific papers," Benjamin L. Ebert, the president and CEO of Dana-Farber, said Tuesday in a statement.

The initiatives include delivering mandatory training on preventing research misconduct to all investigators and research staff, as well as new procedures to better ensure that data is maintained in a way that it can be accessed and audited, according to a Dana-Farber spokeswoman. AI-based tools will also be available for researchers to screen grant applications and draft manuscripts for potential errors and anomalies before they are submitted for consideration.

Dana-Farber received credit for cooperating with the government during the lawsuit, according to the Justice Department. The cancer institute said it proactively shared information with investigators throughout the process.

Scientific journals are a hub between academia, the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, the government, the media and the public. They give new research the imprimatur of rigor and validity and have been a forum for publishing findings that have advanced human health and scientific progress across fields. That role has also put them in the crosshairs of critics who complain about what they view as political bias, corporate influence and fraud. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary for Health and Human Services, has been a frequent critic of scientific journals.

A data sleuth named Sholto David first flagged irregularities in some of Dana-Farber's researchers' papers in January 2024, and contacted the cancer institute and Harvard Medical School.

"Hopefully everyone reads papers carefully, it's always worthwhile," David said.

David, a molecular biologist, published a blog post describing what he said were signs of image manipulation. Following the post, Dana-Farber sought to retract six studies and correct 31 other papers as part of a probe involving several of its researchers. Typically, studies undergo rigorous peer review by experts in the field before publication, but the review process does not always catch fabrications or errors.

In April 2024, David filed the suit under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which enables whistleblowers to sue on behalf of the government to recover taxpayer funds.

According to the Justice Department, David will receive 17.5% of the money recovered, or more than $2.6 million.

"I'm happy with the outcome obviously," David said. "It's a significant amount of money for me, but most of it will be returned to the NIH, which seems appropriate."

Write to Aylin Woodward at aylin.woodward@wsj.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

December 16, 2025 18:29 ET (23:29 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.