This is systematic fraud, and anyone trying those antibodies with falsified data will waste money and time. A lot of papers have been retracted for similar issues. Thermo Fisher is a major worldwide supplier of antibodies, so this has quite a big practical impact.
I have no idea about this catalogue, however, looking at the article and how the image manipulation has happened - it looks very much like "repro" work back in the day.<p>Anything that large companies published in/as magazines, etc, back in the 80/90s first went to a design company. Then to a repro company for the "finishing touches" to make it look nice. Faces were touched up, photo artifacts was removed, everything was to look neat and tidy.<p>This looks so much like that. I wouldn't be surprised if Thermo Fisher still ran <i>everything that is to be published</i> through a marketing/repro cycle, who has tampered with this without realizing what it looks like.<p>It'll be interesting to see if any actual data has been changed, or just the presentation of the data.
No marketing or design company would duplicate a band from another experiment (taking care to rotate it to make it look different nonetheless). Even in that unlikely scenario, Thermo Fisher is still responsible for the scientific data they publish.
The background painting could maybe be explained like this (depending on what was hidden), but I don't think the duplicated blobs have a good explanation, especially because some were rotated to try to hide the manipulation.
Exactly what is the "data" that's being shown here? Is it essentially some kind of marketing material showing "this sort of thing is what you should expect to see" or is it actually <i>data</i> or for compliance? If it's essentially marketing material or an instructional example that isn't meant to be representative it being magically clearer than real life doesn't seem like a great sin (unless it's being claimed it is representative). If it's something to be relied upon for compliance or as data to be used, that's pretty damming.
I'd treat this about the same as datasheets for mechanical or electrical parts.<p>When I buy an electronic component as a regular consumer I expect the datasheet "typical" values to be accurate 90% of the time. I can imagine larger industrial customers would really raise a stink if it's worse than that. However, any critical components in my circuit must be verified and "binned", and that's on me.
> "This image is supposed to demonstrate that the antibody being sold works as intended. It is labeled as “Advanced Verification” data on Thermo Fisher’s site"<p>(links to <a href="https://www.thermofisher.com/uk/en/home/life-science/antibodies/invitrogen-antibody-validation.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.thermofisher.com/uk/en/home/life-science/antibod...</a>)<p>I think it is technically marketing material, but if you have to fabricate your marketing material, that's not a good sign that the material is accurate. If I buy a car based on an advert where it shows the car going at 300 mph, and in real life it maxes out at 30mph, that's misleading advertising and something should be done about it.<p>Given that "at Thermo Fisher, a single vial containing a 0.1 mL aliquot of antibody solution typically costs 400 to 500 USD", you'd want to have accurate marketing material before buying it
Concerning but not really surprising. They offer about hundred thousand antibodies, a few hundred frauds is likely the tip of the iceberg.<p>> “Similar image” searches using Google Lens, Bing Images or DuckDuckGo betray hundreds more that we have yet to document<p>In my experience these would return any image of an antibody PCR, not just the exactly matching background. Would be curious to hear others thoughts.
Without engaging in your point, small nitpick: These are images of Western blots[1], not PCR.<p>1: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_blot" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_blot</a>
From the comments on the article by the author it looks more like 10% <i>so far</i> and they haven't systematically looked. That means ~10% if a probable floor of how much fraud there is.