Investigation into the research of Milena Penkowa - Nyheder

that she does not know, why these Animal Journals are missing from the archive, and that
they are very important, since they document a large set of relevant animal experiments.
Also the interviews with the heads of department and other representatives of the
University did not disclose a reason why these Animal Journals are missing. We have,
however, analyzed the invoices for animals for the years 2000 to 2002.
4.3 Assessments and Observations
The Panel was impressed by the amount of material, present in the form of embedded tissue
blocks and stained tissue sections in the archive of Dr. Penkowa’s laboratory. Thus, an
enormous amount of work and effort has been invested into scientific activities by her and
her team over the decade whence she has been employed at the University of Copenhagen.
This view was further supported by the interviews on 12 April 2012, in which Dr. Penkowa
was described as a very hard working and highly motivated young scientist, who was also
able to create a positive and productive environment for her team. The interviews further
revealed that Dr. Penkowa was highly esteemed as a supportive and competent
collaborator, who also was easy to motivate for new cooperative projects.
When we analyzed experiments done in collaboration, where Dr. Penkowa’s role was
essentially restricted to pathological analysis, we found no reason to doubt that the
material, which was sent to dr. Penkowa’s laboratory from outside, was properly embedded
and archived and respective sections and histological or immunocytochemical stains were
performed, as outlined in the respective papers. Evaluation of pathology with conventional
neuropathological techniques and commonly used and established imunocytochemical
markers was, in general, fine (e.g. GFAP, Lectin). Findings, reported in the papers, could be
verified in many instances by analyzing the respective slides, and the photographic
documentation in the papers reflected what was seen in the original slides. Furthermore,
publications, which were performed in collaboration with other groups and where the actual
data were gathered by students from other laboratories under Dr. Penkowa’s supervision,
did not raise suspicion, and this impression was also confirmed in the interviews with Drs.
Kurtzhals and Juhler.
Potential problems, however, were identified, when the published papers, in which the data
were predominantly generated and interpreted by Dr. Penkowa, were analyzed in detail in
relation to the material found in the archive. These problems were originally detected in the
analysis of the 26 specific publications, which had been selected by the Panel in the course
of the strategy, outlined above, and mainly in the papers published in the years 1999 to
2005. However, problems were also detected for papers published later. In addition, during
the Panel’s further studies, problems were identified in some of the papers which the Panel
had not selected in the first round. The findings include the following aspects:
a) Problems related to the quality control of immunohistochemistry of cytokines,
growth factors and markers for oxidative damage,
38