For nearly four years, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology bioengineering professor remained silent while an inquiry unfolded into allegations that his research copied the work of others. That investigation has concluded, finding no basis that Ram Sasisekharan or the members of his lab engaged in research misconduct.

The conclusions were disclosed by Maria Zuber, vice president of research at MIT. In a message to the MIT community dated March 14 and now posted to the university’s website, Zuber said results of its reviews typically remain confidential in accordance with university policy and federal regulations.

“However, given the very public discourse about these allegations, I believe, and Professor Sasisekharan concurs, that it is necessary to share this information with you to bring closure to this matter, quell any remaining rumors or speculation, and assist in fully restoring the reputations of Professor Sasisekharan and the members of his lab,” Zuber wrote. “In addition, we are committed to ensuring that Professor Sasisekharan and his lab can return to normal operation.”

Sasisekharan’s research focuses on antibody engineering. His work has led to the formation of several biotech companies, such as Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Tychan, and Visterra. In 2019, the journal mAbs published a paper that alleged two computationally designed antibodies from Sasisekharan’s lab were derived from existing antibodies. All of the authors worked for Adimab, an antibody discovery company. One of them was Tillman Gerngross, a Dartmouth College bioengineering professor whose research has also led to the formation of several biotech companies, including Adimab.

After the paper published in mAbs, Sasisekharan initially pushed back on its allegations. He pointed out that the paper was accepted within two days of submission and was not peer reviewed. Furthermore, he said neither the authors nor the journal editors contacted him and he only learned about it from a Wall Street Journal reporter, who provided him with the preprint. He also said he was considering potential legal action. But soon after the publication of the paper in mAbs, MIT said it received an internal complaint alleging research misconduct regarding the same research discussed in the paper. That complaint triggered the university’s investigation.

Zuber’s letter states that Sasisekharan and others in his lab fully cooperated with the probe, which was conducted according to university policies and procedures. Those policies included a requirement that Sasisekharan refrain from publicly speaking about the matter during the investigation. Zuber did not elaborate on the inquiry’s findings, other than to state that MIT used its standard three-part review process to determine if there was sufficient evidence to find research misconduct. That process used a preponderance of evidence standard. In a statement, Sasisekharan said he was pleased by the outcome of the university’s investigation.

“These past three and a half years have been exceedingly difficult for my lab, my family and me,” Sasisekharan said. “The very public attack we endured, together with our inability to defend ourselves publicly, was a most egregious abuse of the research misconduct process. Being attacked publicly, and silenced confidentially, had an extraordinarily negative impact on my laboratory staff and the students we mentor and train.”

Now that Sasisekharan is free to discuss the matter, the scientist has renewed his pushback on the mAbs paper claims with detailed responses posted to his laboratory website. Some members of the scientific community are joining pushing back as well, calling on mAbs to retract the Adimab paper.

Photo: Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg, via Getty Images