The Dark Side of Amar Klar

In a previous publication I revealed a history distortion incidence (Sci. Ethics 2: 38-40, 2007). A prominent scientist once told the speaker of an invited seminar that his talk on bacterial/cell life and potential linkage between DNA aging and cell aging as a result of nonrandom DNA strand segregation touched his heart. However, ten years later, the same prominent scientist declared in his Science publication that that “We [they] are not aware of any study designed specifically to determine the strand distribution of a specific chromosome” (Science 311: 1146-1149, 2006).

Recently, the speaker of that seminar, Shi V. Liu, contacted that prominent scientist, Amar J. S. Klar of National Cancer Institute (NCI) of National Institutes of Health (NIH). Liu wrote:

“I think that you might not be aware that I had published my discoveries. So I am presenting you my earlier publications and wish you could submit to Science some kind correction or clarification to overcome the deficiency in your introduction to the research history in this area and the neglect of my prior publications.” (Complete letter is attached as appendix 1)

Klar replied “[T]he four papers you attach with your message I have never read them before. I look forward to reading them and will be happy to exchange ideas if I have some pertinent comment about them.” He further emphasized that “I have been publishing on DNA strandedness and its relevance to development since 1987”. (Excerpt of Klar’s reply is attached as Appendix 2)

Liu replied to Klar:

“I wish to point out that your understanding of the implication of nonrandom DNA segregation is quite different from mine and unfortunately is wrong. I wish to hear from you whether my judgment is correct after you read my publications.” (Complete letter in appendix 3)

Klar immediately replied to Liu “If my theory is wrong, so what, let others prove it so.” (Excerpt of Klar’s reply is attached as Appendix 4)

After reading the 4 publications by Liu Klar wrote to Liu “there is not much of substance in them. If anything, the main idea was published as a hypothesis by Cairns in 1975 that you address only in the last paper. So it will be hard for you to get credit for it.” Klar admitted that “my [his] ideas are very different from yours [Liu’s], there is not much overlap”. (Excerpt of Klar’s reply is attached as Appendix 5)

Liu replied to Klar:

“I did not state nor I would argue that your ideas (understanding of the implication for the true fact of nonrandom DNA strand segregation) are the same as of mine (no one has published the same interpretations for the nonrandom DNA segregation as mine, including Cairns).

To the contrary I said that your interpretations are wrong, so was interpretation offered Cairns.”

Then Liu presented with more detailed arguments why Cairns’ immortal strand hypothesis is wrong and why his theory on nonrandom DNA strand segregation is more meaningful and correct (See complete letter as appendix 6). Liu even sent Klar another earlier publication entitled “Revisit Semi-Conservative DNA replication and Immortal DNA Strand hypothesis” in which Liu presented very clear arguments against the wrong immortal strand hypothesis and insightful knowledge on the deep meaning of semi-conservative DNA replication.

As to the scientific disagreements, Liu stated:

“Of course you can disagree with me and that is very normal in scientific research (see attached Correspondence published in Nature). As a matter of fact, I have always welcomed others to critically review my work and even asked some people to convert their informal criticisms into formal papers and published them in the journal that I serve as the editor-in-chief. If you wish I welcome you to write such a formal critical review/comment and I will publish whatever you write.”

As to the ethical behaviors for scientific research and publishing, Liu repeated his demand for a correction on Klar’s citation mistake and history distortion by stating:

“In your 2006 Science paper (311: 1146-1149) you stated that “We are not aware of any study designed specifically to determine the strand distribution of a specific chromosome”. Considering the fact that you had heard my seminar back in 1997 and I had published clear predictions and detailed drawing of the precise DNA strand segregation that was later verified in some of your studies and now also in others’ studies (a publication in PLoS Biology by Rando’s group did not cite your experimental discoveries despite your work were published in Science), do you think that it is truthful and fair for you to make that introduction to this research field? If not, please correct this distortion of history.”

To all above scientific arguments and ethical concerns Klar simply replied that “I disagree with your analysis of our work. In my view your thinking is far removed form my thinking as we do not have much in common. So to avoid wasting each others time please do not contact me in future.” (Excerpt of Klar’s reply is attached as Appendix 7)

So the “touched my heart” of ten years ago was now turned into the opposite “do not contact me”! As such, Klar has behaved in a very questionable manner that casts considerable doubt on his honesty in doing scientific research.

As a true scientist s/he should be willing to listen to different opinions and objectively argue against different interpretations on his/her observations. However, Klar not only intentionally trashed some valuable discoveries that his own experimental observations support but also intentionally confuse them with a wrong hypothesis that he still support for interpreting his observations. Klar is so willing in giving such incorrect and irresponsible assessment but then unwilling to publish that assessment when invited to do so. This behavior is thus very questionable because it shows a clear dishonesty in doing scientific research and evaluating scientific discovery.

As an ethical scientist, one should always give credit to pioneers who have led his/her way into new discovery. Klar had been exploring some biological puzzles but he was clearly enlightened by some unique and correct insight offered by Liu and later gained some experimental evidences that are well in line with Liu’s theory. However, he gave no credit to Liu and even trashed Liu’s solid publications as containing no substance. He refused kindly request to correct his citation mistake and distortion on history. Klar’s such behavior is very questionable because it shows his lack of some basic moral value in engaging scientific competition and paying respect for pioneers.

Thus, I wish to record Klar’s questionable behaviors in the history and ask the public to pay attention to such questionable behaviors in scientific research and publishing.

* This publication has been proof-read by a peer the author takes all responsibility for any mistakes in this publication. Any subsequent complaints and arguments against this publication will be published without additional editing except for the exclusion of inflammatory/offensive and thus unethical wording.

Appendix

Appendix 1. Letter to Klar from Liu

August 14, 2007 To: klar@ncifcrf.gov

Dear Dr. Amar J. S. Klar:

I am writing to you to let you know that I am preparing a legal case against the violations of my intellectual properties by some unethical “scientists” who have intentionally ignored my pioneering discoveries on bacterial/cell aging and the nonrandom DNA strand segregation.

You may recall that I presented my discovery in a formal seminar to NCI which you also attended. I still remember you told me that my talk touched your heart.

I noticed that you have published some experimental findings that show indeed the nonrandom DNA segregation happens. However, I am disappointed that you did not cite my earlier publications.

I think that you might not be aware that I had published my discoveries. So I am presenting you my earlier publications and wish you could submit to Science some kind correction or clarification to overcome the deficiency in your introduction to the research history in this area and the neglect of my prior publications.

I hope, with that correction, I will convince my attorney that you should not be included in the list of “scientists” being sued. I also wish my publications will be useful for you to make even more solid contributions in this area in the future.

Thank you for your attention!

Sincerely yours,

Shi V. Liu MD PhD

Eagle Institute of Molecular Medicine

Apex, NC 27502

919-272-5146

SVL8EPA@gmail.com

Attached publications:

1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China 42: 644-654.

2005. Linking DNA aging with cell aging and combining genetics with epigenetics. Logical Biology 5: 51-55.

2005. A Theoretical framework for understanding biotic aging from molecule to organism in multicellular life. Logical Biology 5: 109-116.

2006. Revisit semi-conservative DNA replication and immortal DNA strand hypothesis. Logical Biology 6: 54-61.

Appendix 2. Reply from Klar to Liu (excerpt)

I am very much surprised with the contents of your letter and the implication that I have intentionally ignored referring to your work in our papers. I disagree with you.

The four papers you attach with your message I have never read them before. I look forward to reading them and will be happy to exchange ideas if I have some pertinent comment about them. To remind you I have been publishing on DNA strandedness and its relevance to development since 1987. The relevance to development is not generally accepted in the field, so I got to keep trying. As with any new idea, people are reluctant to accept them right away.

Nearly scientists have felt one time or the other that their work is not properly attributed. In my case I have ignored that but if I feel strongly about it I chose to published the ideas in subsequent publications.

Appendix 3. Response to Klar from Liu

Dear Dr. Klar,

Thank you for the quick reply.

No it is not my intention to treat you the same as the others who truly intentionally ignored my work.

I appreciated very much you positive attitude towards my seminar at NCI. As a matter of fact, you might be the only one that had some belief in my hypothesis of nonrandom DNA strand segregation because I actually had to argue with others in NCI during my visit that random segregation is a mistaken interpretation.

However, I wish to point out that you understanding of the implication of nonrandom DNA segregation is quite different from mine and unfortunately is wrong. I wish to hear from you whether my judgment is correct after you read my publications.

Sincerely,

Shi V. Liu

Appendix 4. Response from Klar to Liu (excerpt)

If my theory is wrong, so what, let others prove it so. If it is right, I got to keep providing evidence for it to convince others. I respect your comment about it and it does not offend me a bit. You are not the first one to say that my theory is wrong. In fact Dr. Haber wrote scathing comments on our first paper in Science for that we responded that he is wrong (see attached). Both sides spelled out their point, let others decide what they want to believe. Surely more work is needed to satisfy every body and that is good science. In my case people had lots of disbelief with my work, but I am happy to say by persistence some came on board, not all. I respect that as people think differently than what I think to be convincing evidence.

Appendix 5. Klar’s assessment on Liu’s publications (excerpt)

I just read the attached papers and in my opinion there is not much of substance in them. If anything, the main idea was published as a hypothesis by Cairns in 1975 that you address only in the last paper. So it will be hard for you to get credit for it. People come up with lots of ideas, unless they are experimentally verified most high powered journals are not willing to publish them.

Also I believe my ideas are very different from yours, there is not much overlap.

Appendix 6. Liu’s rebuttal on Klar’s misreading and misunderstanding

August 17, 2007

Dear Dr. Klar,

I did not state nor I would argue that your ideas (understanding of the implication for the true fact of nonrandom DNA strand segregation) are the same as of mine (no one has published the same interpretations for the nonrandom DNA segregation as mine, including Cairns).

To the contrary I said that your interpretations are wrong, so was interpretation offered Cairns.

Thus, I am truly surprised to read your conclusion that my papers have not much of substance and the main idea was published as hypothesis by Cairns in 1975. I suggest that you re-read Cairns’ 1975 Nature paper and my papers (including one that I am adding here to the previous ones to you) and then let me know if my ideas are totally new (still to others even though already 17 years-old to myself).

It is true that high powered journals no longer publish great theoretic discoveries and experimental discoveries not sophisticated to satisfy their tastes. However, a publication is a publication, no matter who published it and where it was published. As long as its conclusion is valid the discovery should be respected even if it does not contain any wet-lab experimental data. As said by Einstein: “It is the theory which decides what we can observe”.

It is too said that some non-peer-reviewed non-English publications of Einstein’s purely theoretical work actually won him great honor when the validity of his theory was proved by some experimental observations made by others. It is ironic that the greatest past discovery in life science is actually a theoretical modeling work based on others’ experimental data that was published (after appealing the initial rejection as rumor said) only as a less-than-one-page-long short paper. But Nobel Prize still went to these theoretical “biologists” instead of those who later experimentally proved the correctness of the two-strand model not the other models such as three-strand model published in a much longer paper by a well known scientist. So, please do not look down on my discoveries simply because they were rejected by the so-called “top” journals and use that as an excuse for not citing my publications.

Now I wish to show some black-white contrasting points between my theory and Cairns’ hypothesis:

I said that the old DNA template strand is an aged DNA molecule that is thus more labile to aging-associated damages but Cairns’ immortal strand hypothesis claim that this DNA strand is immortal which means ageless.
I said the old DNA template strand stays with a true mother cell after it reproduces its true daughter cell which receives the young DNA template strand. But no one including Cairns has made such a mother-daughter distinction between two cells formed from one cell. If you know such prior knowledge, please show its existence to me. Otherwise you have to acknowledge that I am a pioneer in making this great discovery.
Cairns “immortal strand” hypothesis actually is that stem cell is immune from cancer because its DNA strand is nut subject to the mutation change. I predict that cancer in stem cell is very likely and its damage to the whole organism would be severe. If you are an objective scientist and have some broad vision of biology and medicine, you should recognize that Cairns hypothesis is deadly wrong because stem cell cancer is not a fiction but a fact.
No one has made a correct link between molecule aging and cell aging and organismal aging. I did this as in my ground-breaking publications you just read. How can you miss that great point?

Of course you can disagree with me and that is very normal in scientific research (see attached Correspondence published in Nature). As a matter of fact, I have always welcomed others to critically review my work and even asked some people to convert their informal criticisms into formal papers and published them in the journal that I serve as the editor-in-chief. If you wish I welcome you to write such a formal critical review/comment and I will publish whatever you write.

Now let me turn back to the necessity for you to publish a correction to your Science publication. In your 2006 Science paper (311: 1146-1149) you stated that “We are not aware of any study designed specifically to determine the strand distribution of a specific chromosome”. Considering the fact that you had heard my seminar back in 1997 and I had published clear predictions and detailed drawing of the precise DNA strand segregation that was later verified in some of your studies and now also in others’ studies (a publication in PLoS Biology by Rando’s group did not cite your experimental discoveries despite your work were published in Science), do you think that it is truthful and fair for you to make that introduction to this research field? If not, please correct this distortion of history. If you still believe that it is a right to maintain that distortion, then I have to turn this case also to my lawyers.

I truly wish that my free-offering of my discoveries to you would shed some lights to your research so that it will be directed to some correct path. However, I wish that, once you found some wet-lab experimental evidence that are consistent with my theory, you will pay due respect to the theory and give credit to a true pioneer.

Sincerely yours,

Shi V. Liu

Appendix 7. Klar’s final attitude to Liu’s criticisms (excerpt)

I read your letter. I disagree with your analysis of our work. In my view your thinking is far removed form my thinking as we do not have much in common. So to avoid wasting each others time please do not contact me in future.

*Scientific Ethics* 2（3): 96-101, 2007	MISCONDUCT EXPOSED
http://im1.biz
© Truthfinding Cyberpress	CITATION MISCONDUCT