Objections to the Findings of the Preliminary Investigation into the Misconduct of Research Activities in Dissertation Thesis (dated 8 February 2019)

By the Association Requesting the University of Kyoto to Verify the Doctorate Degree Granted to a Unit 731 Military Officer

I. Objections to the Results of the Preliminary Investigation

1. On the "monkey"'s headaches and the body temperature of the "monkey"

(1) On the author's method of investigation and scientific validation of the monkey's "headache"

    The preliminary investigation results recognize that the author failed to describe how the "monkey" had been validated to have a headache. However, the investigation adds that the author could have inferred the validation of the "headache" through unspecified methods of investigation. The dissertation makes no mention of the methods the author pursued in order to make those inferences, and hence the validation appears to be mere speculation. We would also like to point out that an inference made without evidence goes against the scientific method. In addition, the preliminary investigation made mention of "headache-like symptoms". This terminology has only been introduced into the literature in recent years, so the author at the time was unlikely to have been referring  to "headache-like symptoms" when he evaluated (validated) the monkey as having a "headache".

 

(2) On the unlikelihood that the body temperature measurements were of a monkey

    The preliminary investigation results state that although it is possible that the body temperature fluctuations of monkeys could be similar to the fluctuations observed in humans, and therefore it

cannot be shown definitively that the subject in the thesis was human. However, this conclusion, made on the basis that monkeys and humans have similar circadian rhythms, s at best be mere speculation. One of the two "monkeys" shown in Ref. 5 was recorded to have a maximum body temperature of 39°C for at most 2 days. The other monkey did not have temperatures that exceeded 39°C. In other words, Ref. 5 contradicts the preliminary investigation results which state that "it is unlikely for monkeys' body temperatures to persist beyond 39°C beyond 5 days", because it recorded that temperatures above 39°C had been observed for over 5 days. In other words, this demonstrates at the very least that the subjects in question were not monkeys.

 

(3) On the lack of mention of the conditions of the special experiment

    The preliminary investigation results recognizes that "it is unclear what kinds of monkeys were used, or what methods and when body temperatures were measured in the special experiment". This demonstrates that the University of Kyoto failed to uphold its standards of "an academic institution with strict examination standards", and that the dissertation in question fails to meet the basic

conditions under which a degree may be awarded. This should be frankly acknowledged and a formal investigation should be held to investigate the validity of the thesis in question.

 

2. On the dissertation's consistency with the state of medicine and research into monkeys at the time of authorship

(1) How were "complaints" defined in medical science at that time?

    The preliminary investigation states that it cannot be concluded from the dissertation whether the subjects of the experiment were monkeys or humans. However, what was meant by "special experiment" and "monkey" at the University of Kyoto Faculty of Medicine must have been well known. Hence, there had been no objections to the dissertation at that time because the use of a "special experiment" and "monkeys" must have been deemed normal. We take objection to the preliminary findings on this point.

 

(2) Citing current literature is meaningless and should not be used in the argument

    Refs. 1 and 2 as cited in the preliminary investigation were published only recently. Their results were unknown to the author of the dissertation at the time. Using their results to argue the existence

of "headache-like symptoms) or the lack thereof does not constitute a logical argument.

    In other words, since the dissertation was submitted in 1945 and was deemed deserving of a degree, it is necessary to consider evidence dating back to the scientific knowledge of 1945. Nevertheless, the preliminary investigation results have not acknowledged this point. We would like to make a request to review the preliminary findings on this point.

 

(3) Verification based on current knowledge lacks scientific rationality

    When verifying historical events, it is commonly accepted today that conducting scientific validation based on current knowledge and not on past knowledge lacks scientific rationality. It is unfair to scientifically validate the past with knowledge that we have only recently acquired. On the topic of "headache-like behavior" that the author might have observed, it would be impossible to detect an intent of fraud on the author's part. It would be first necessary to understand the state of research

into using monkeys as subjects for medical experiments at the time in order to verify if the description of the "headache" and body temperatures of the subjects were obtained.

 

(4) There has been no investigation that shows that the plague bacteria affect humans just as it does to monkeys

    The preliminary investigation has only investigated whether the subject of the dissertation was a monkey or not a monkey. However, the dissertation could only have used monkeys as experimental

subjects if there was knowledge that plague bacteria, Ctenocephalus canis Curtis, infects humans just as it does monkeys. The preliminary investigation has not traced if the author could have possessed that information at the time. We would like to file a request to verify this point.

 

II. Objection to the investigation of the possibility of "misconduct in research activities"

1. The subject of the preliminary investigation has not been considered in its results.

    The subject of the preliminary investigation was the verification of "whether the subject used in the

experiment was a monkey or a human," and in the conclusion, it states that "there is not enough scientific reason to clearly deny that the subject was not a monkey".

    However, in order to assume that our doubts were unreasonable, it is necessary to prove that "the subject was clearly a monkey" or "the subject was a human being". However, the preliminary investigation has not obtained such concrete conclusions and hence the preliminary investigation has been insufficient.

 

2. The possibility of “misconduct in research" or "inhumane human experiment" is extremely high

The dissertation at hand makes mention of army lieutenant general surgeon Shiro Ishii. He was in charge of Manchurian Unit 731 and army major surgeon Masayasu Hirasawa, the author of the dissertation being discussed, was a member of the same unit.

     Manchurian Unit 731 has been known to have carried out inhumane experiments on humans for the development and deployment of bacteriological weapons. The Unit was known to substitute the word

"human" for "monkey" in its experiments. In the medical community as well as the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Kyoto at the time, it must have been clear that the "special experiment" on

"monkeys" was referring to. Hence, the possibility that the dissertation being discussed was the result of inhumane experiments on humans is extremely high. There is therefore grounds that the "Investigation Requirements on Research Activity Misconduct in Kyoto University" have been met, and that an investigation that takes history into account should be carried out. 

For reference, we include this paragraph describing the background of the examiners for the dissertation being discussed:

    The first examiner, Professor Shigeaki Sugiyama, in charge of lecturing on pathology and anatomy, was a fellow graduate of Shiro Ishii. They graduated from in same year from the Kyoto Imperial University Medical School. The second examiner, Professor Shozo Toda, was formerly head of the medical faculty. He was in charge of assigning faculty members to Unit 731. The third examiner, Professor Ren Kimura, head of the medical faculty, was also involved in assigning faculty members to Unit 731.

III. Conclusion

    The conclusion of the preliminary investigation, that "there is no rational scientific reason for requiring

the investigation on the basis of suspected fabrication" is wrong. We request a formal investigation. 

    In addition, although the author cannot be interviewed, the University has a responsibility to be an impartial judge to whether the faculty members had improperly evaluated the dissertation being discussed. It is precisely because that the author cannot be interviewed then and thus it remains doubtful at best whether a thorough investigation had been able to be conducted at the time for granting a degree. Furthermore, there has been no trace of investigation of the validity of “non-existence” of the experiment notebooks or raw data that allegedly were used in the dissertation.

 

Appendix

Based on the background described above, we request the following:

1. For the University to disclose the minutes of the Liaison Committee of the Compliance Promotion Headquarters.

 

2. The University shall, upon the decision of conducting another preliminary investigation based on the objections raised by the Association, notify the Association of the following types of information: such decision itself; the reasons for its execution; and the names of the committee members assigned to the investigation on the faculty and departmental levels, in accordance with Article 8 of the requirements for investigation.

 

3. The University shall notify the Association of the results of the investigation within 150 days upon its

completion, in accordance with Articles 14 and 15 of the requirements. If the timing of the notification of the results exceeds 150 days, the Association needs to be promptly notified regarding the reasons and be informed about the interim results.

 

4. The University shall take all the necessary actions to reclaim any missing materials that the Association demands, and to conduct hearings.