Opinion ID: 182691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Chandok's Reported Results and the Efforts To Replicate Them

Text: On October 20, 2002, Chandok sent Klessig data indicating that she had identified and isolated the protein responsible for catalyzing NOS-like activity, dubbed variant P or varP, by biochemical means; that she had introduced the cloned NOS gene into E. coli and baculovirus; and that she had performed in vitro experiments that confirmed her findings. She reported that the recombinant protein ( i.e., the protein resulting from her genetic engineering and recombination) had NOS activity, a result that would have constituted a significant breakthrough in the field of plant research (Amended Complaint ¶ 12). Chandok's reported results were widely publicized within the plant-biology community. They were described in an article coauthored by Chandok, Klessig, and Drs. A. Jimmy Ytterberg and Klaas J. van Wijk of the Cornell Department of Plant Biology, published in May 2003 in the academic journal Cell. A follow-up article based on the same research, coauthored by Chandok, Klessig, BTI scientist Dr. Sophia K. Ekengren, and Dr. Gregory B. Martin of BTI and the Cornell Department of Plant Pathology, appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ( PNAS ) in May 2004. Prior to Chandok's report of her discoveries, Klessig had twice applied to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for grants to fund NOS research. Neither application was granted. After Chandok's October 20 report of her findings to Klessig, a revised application, cowritten by Klessig and Chandok, was submitted to NIH on October 25. The materials presented in the new application consisted almost entirely of Chandok's reported data. In mid-2003, Klessig's laboratory received a grant of more than $1 million from NIH to fund further NOS research. In late March 2004, Chandokwho asserts that her working relationship with Klessig by then had deteriorated because of his demeaning behavior toward her ( see Chandok brief on appeal at 11; Amended Complaint ¶ 14)submitted her resignation from BTI and shortly moved to Maryland. Thereafter, none of the other scientists in Klessig's laboratory were able to replicate the results that Chandok had reported and that were described in the Cell and PNAS articles. In the following months, Klessig called Chandok several times to ask her to return to Ithaca to help replicate her NOS experiments. Chandok declined. Klessig also tried many times during that period, without success, to reach Chandok by telephone and e-mail to discuss the research. In June 2004, BTI's human resources director Lucy Pola sent an e-mail to Chandok that stated, in part, as follows: I know that Dan has been trying to reach you about replicating some of the work you have done (I apologize for not being able to tell you exactly what part). I do know that he is asking if you could come help the 3 postdocs in the lab with the procedure as they are unable to replicate. He understands how tricky this procedure was and feels that with your assistance they would be able to do it. He has indicated that he would pay your travel, lodging etc. if you would be willing to come out and help. Meena, I know your relationship with Dan is strained and that this may seem like a request that you are uncomfortable with. I also know that you are an excellent scientist and that you understand the importance of being able to replicate results. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Chandok responded that she agree[d] that it is important to reproduce results, but stated that [U]nfortunately, my current commitments are keeping me extremely busy. However, if the situation changes at a future point in time, I shall contact you. After 10 days with no further word from Chandok, Klessig sent her a letter dated June 18, 2004, by e-mail, fax, and registered mail. The letter stated that, although Klessig continued to believe [Chandok] did purify an NO synthase protein and that protein is varP (and/or P) or at least that varP is part of the iNOS [ i.e., inducible NOS] activity, it was, as he had told her repeatedly, critical that other scientists within, as well as outside[] of[,] our group be able to reproduce your results on the plant iNOS independently, but that none of BTI's scientists had been able to do so. Klessig's June 18 letter asked Chandok to return to Ithaca, at BTI's expense, to assist in the reproduction of her results by mid-July, estimat[ing that] it should take no longer than a week or two to do these experiments and resolve the matter. Klessig stated that in return for [Chandok's] cooperation in assisting in verification of [her] reported results, he would provide her with strong recommendations for future job applications. He added, inter alia, that [i]f you fail to respond to this letter in a timely manner, you will leave me with little choice but to assume your results are unverifiable and therefore will force me to take the following actions:  I will retract both the Cell and PNAS papers.  I will have to contact the INS and retract my April 11, 2002 letter of support for your permanent residency application.  I will also have to inform the president of BTI and the government agencies which supported your work (NSF and NIH). A formal inquiry, overseen by NSF and NIH, will ensue. Chandok's response came in the form of a June 30, 2004 letter from her attorney, addressed to the chairman of BTI's board of directors. The letter stated that Chandok would not, under any circumstances, again work with or for Dr. Klessig and characterized Klessig's efforts to contact Chandok as a campaign of harassment; that Chandok stood by her research and findings and would welcome any legitimate third-party inquiry; and that if Klessig made the disclosures threatened in his letter, Chandok would consider those statements defamatory and would sue. Chandok did not return to Ithaca. Throughout the spring and summer of 2004, the scientists working in Klessig's laboratory tried in vain to replicate the results that had been reported by Chandok. On July 26, Klessig received an e-mail from one of his researchers who, after describing various problems encountered in attempts to use Chandok's methods and verify her results, concluded as follows: All of our findings are contradictory to what Meena recorded in the lab notebook, the patent document, and her Cell and PNAS papers. I do not think that her experiment data are reliable.