On April 16, Tongji University issued a stern statement through its official channels regarding the widely discussed case of alleged academic misconduct involving Professor Wang, dean of the School of Life Sciences and Technology and a distinguished professor under the Ministry of Education’s “Changjiang Scholars” program. The university announced that it has formally established a special investigation team to conduct a comprehensive inquiry. The statement emphasized Tongji University’s “zero tolerance” stance toward academic misconduct, stressing that once the allegations are verified, strict action will be taken in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and institutional rules, with no leniency. This announcement marks the formal entry of a controversy—sparked by revelations from a science blogger and public questioning by prominent scholars—into official university procedures, placing a once-celebrated “academic star,” who had published twice in Nature within a single year, into the most serious integrity crisis of his career.
The controversy was triggered by a series of videos posted on social media by the self-media blogger “Geng Tongxue Jiang Gushi.” In these videos, the blogger conducted detailed comparisons of several high-impact papers published by Wang’s team in recent years, pointing out issues such as repeated use of images, abnormal data distributions, and logical inconsistencies. The videos quickly caused a stir in the scientific community and on academic discussion platforms. Internet users followed up by discovering that concerns about Wang’s papers had already appeared sporadically as early as 2025 on PubPeer, an internationally known anonymous academic review site. However, these concerns only gained overwhelming momentum recently under public scrutiny, ultimately forcing the parties involved to respond directly.
Public attention peaked on April 15, when the well-known biologist Rao Yi commented on the issue via his personal media platform “Rao Discusses Science.” Although his remarks were largely based on existing allegations, his considerable influence in the field lent the issue a serious tone. As a prominent figure in exposing academic fraud in China, Rao’s intervention was widely interpreted as signaling both the credibility and severity of the case. Given Wang’s status as a Changjiang Distinguished Professor and recipient of the National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, his high academic standing and broad influence have elevated the matter beyond a simple discussion of academic error to one of potential systemic scientific misconduct.
The core of the allegations centers on two major papers published by Wang’s team in Nature between 2024 and 2025. One is titled “7-Dehydrocholesterol Determines Ferroptosis Sensitivity,” while the other concerns how human HDAC6 senses valine abundance to regulate DNA damage. These studies were once regarded as significant breakthroughs in cancer therapy, and Wang himself described them in interviews as the result of “a decade of painstaking effort.” However, critics have pointed out that some experimental data in the papers exhibit highly unusual “mathematical relationships,” with nearly identical differences between datasets across experimental groups and decimal distributions that do not conform to natural statistical patterns—raising suspicions that the data may have been artificially generated using software.
According to records on PubPeer, questions about partial image duplication in the 2025 paper on valine had already been raised by peers as early as June last year. At the time, a co–first author responded via the author account, attributing the issue to “misuse of images” during the layout process and applying for a correction with the journal. However, as more experts joined the discussion in April this year, the focus of the allegations shifted from simple image errors to deeper concerns about data fabrication. Some analyses suggested that the statistical patterns in certain figures were nearly impossible to occur naturally, and that the research team failed to provide convincing original experimental records when confronted with questions involving raw data.
In response to the growing public pressure, Wang, as the corresponding author, has recently addressed the issue on PubPeer and other channels. He stated that the team recognizes the seriousness of the situation and has initiated a re-examination of original data and experimental records. Wang acknowledged that a comprehensive review of all related data and analytical processes is underway and promised to report the findings to the editors of Nature as soon as conclusions are reached. While this response demonstrates a degree of cooperation, it has not quelled external doubts. In the international academic community, data fabrication is often considered a “cardinal sin,” and any compromise on the authenticity of experimental results can lead to a complete collapse of academic credibility.
As one of China’s top universities, Tongji University’s handling of the case is under close public scrutiny. Following the April 16 statement, many faculty members and students expressed that the truth of the matter concerns not only Wang’s personal academic future but also the university’s reputation and the broader research culture. If a professor holding multiple national-level honors is confirmed to have committed fraud, not only would there be accountability for substantial research funding—such as grants from the National Natural Science Foundation—but the academic promotion system and research evaluation mechanisms behind it would also face intense criticism. The university’s investigation team, led by its academic committee, is expected to conduct several weeks of rigorous verification.
The incident has also sparked deeper public reflection on the “celebrification” of academics and the overreliance on top-tier journals. Within the current research evaluation system, publishing in journals like Nature or Science is often directly tied to fame, career advancement, funding, and prestigious titles. Such high rewards may, to some extent, encourage academic opportunism, pushing some researchers—under immense pressure and temptation—toward data embellishment or even fabrication. Wang’s rapid publication of two top-tier papers within a single year was once seen as a point of pride for Tongji’s medical school, but if misconduct is confirmed, it could become a profound irony.