444 3 MAY 2019 • VOL 364 ISSUE 6439 sciencemag.org SCIENCE

PH

OT

O:

LU

IS B

AR

RE

TO

RetractionThe Report “Coseismic rupturing stopped

by Aso volcano during the 2016 Mw 7.1

Kumamoto earthquake, Japan” (1) presented

evidence that the 2016 Mw 7.1 Kumamoto

earthquake produced a surface rupture

zone of ~40 km long along the preexist-

ing active fault zone and identified for the

first time faults on the western side of Aso

caldera, Kyushu Island, Japan.

In August 2017, a confidential investiga-

tion into potential irregularities in the

paper was initiated at Kyoto University.

The investigation was completed in March

2019 and has confirmed that the paper

contained falsified data and manipulated

images. Specifically, there were multiple

falsifications in Figs. 1B, 1C, 2A, and

2C and instances of plagiarism in Fig.

1C. These were the responsibility of the

corresponding author, Aiming Lin. In

agreement with the recommendation of

the investigation, the authors are retract-

ing the Report. Author Nakajima could

not be reached.

A. Lin1*, T. Satsukawa2, M. Wang1,

Z. Mohammadi Asl1, R. Fueta3

1Department of Geophysics, Graduate School of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan. 2Tokyo 106-8450, Japan. 3Setagaya City, Tokyo 158-0091, Japan.*Corresponding author.Email: slin@kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. A. Lin, T. Satsukawa, M. Wang, Z. Mohammadi Asl, R. Fueta, F. Nakajima, Science 354, 869 (2016).

10.1126/science.aax6803

Colombia’s inadequate environmental goalsThe 2016 peace agreement between

Colombia’s government and the

Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia

(FARC) led to optimism about Colombia’s

environmental future (1). Because the

agreement aimed to prevent additional

conversion of forests to farmland, it

provided an opportunity to address the

causes of deforestation (2). However,

since the agreement passed, Colombia’s

regulations have failed to protect the envi-

ronment (3), and its New Development

Plan for 2018 to 2022 (NDP) sets insuffi-

cient targets that all but guarantee further

environmental degradation (4).

Edited by Jennifer Sills

LETTERS

Between 2016 and 2017, deforestation

in Colombia peaked at 200,000 ha (5).

In section IV of the NDP, the Colombian

government sets targets that maintain

the current and alarming annual levels

of deforestation (4). The NDP indicators,

proposed as the baseline, suggest that no

efforts should be made to decrease defor-

estation until 900,000 ha have been lost,

which will allow deforestation to continue

at the current rate. If Colombia does not

set a more ambitious target, the country’s

forests will be reduced by 220,000 ha in

the next year and more than that in each

year afterward (5). The potential conse-

quences not only raise environmental and

conservation concerns but threaten land

rights (including individual property rights

and collective property rights for indig-

enous and afro-Colombian communities)

and human rights (6).

According to the NDP, the Colombian

government is open to disregarding both

national and international regulations that

address environmental protection beyond

deforestation. The current administra-

tion may not comply with the 2015 United

Nations climate change agreement, signed

and ratified in 2017, that agreed on 35%

CO2 emissions reduction by 2030 (7).

Similarly, Colombia could compromise

goals set as part of international part-

nerships—signed in 2015 with Norway,

Germany, and the United Kingdom

(8)—that were put in place to protect its

rainforest and promote self-governance of

INSIGHTS

ethnic territories. The NDP also contradicts

the ruling of the National Supreme Court

that recognizes the Colombian Amazon

as a “subject of rights,” a designation that

promotes actions for rural and sustainable

development (9).

The NDP baseline data and the scope

remain vague and open to interpretation.

As a result, environmental degradation in

Colombia may accelerate and its negative

impacts on conservation, land rights, and

human rights could increase. Furthermore,

it is unclear whether Colombia will remain

accountable for global commitments.

The NDP is under consideration in the

Colombian Congress and expected to be

approved by 7 May (10). Before approval,

the plan should be revised to take into

account the number of hectares that

should be reforested or restored and the

estimated hectares that should remain

untouched and protected. The targets

should be revised to restrict deforestation

to the bare minimum instead of allow-

ing the current unsustainable activities

to continue unabated. If the plan passes

in its current form, Colombian citizens,

in collaboration with NGOs, universities,

and social and political organizations (11),

should demand that the government enact

effective antideforestation policies.

Luca Eufemia1*, Michelle Bonatti1,

Augusto Castro-Nunez2, Marcos Lana3,

Hector Morales1, Stefan Sieber1 1SusLAND Research Area 2 Land Use and

Governance–Leibniz Centre for Agricultural

Published by AAAS

on March 13, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

3 MAY 2019 • VOL 364 ISSUE 6439 445SCIENCE sciencemag.org

Landscape Research (ZALF), 15374 Müncheberg,

Germany. 2Climate Policy and Finance, Sustainable

Food Systems Team, Decision and Policy Analysis

Research Area, International Center for Tropical

Agriculture, Headquarters and Regional Office for

Latin America and the Caribbean, Cali 763537,

Colombia. 3Department of Crop Production Ecology,

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 75007

Uppsala, Sweden.

*Corresponding author. Email: luca.eufemia@zalf.de

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. N. Clerici et al., Science, 354, 190 (2016). 2. P. Valenzuela, S. Caicedo, in Routledge Handbook of

Environmental Conflict and Peacebuilding, A. Swain, J. Öjendal, Eds. (Routledge, London, 2018), pp. 245–253.

3. L. R. Carrasco, T. P. Le Nghiem, Z. Chen, E. B. Barbier, Sci.

Adv. 3, e1602602 (2017). 4. Presidency of the Republic of Colombia, “Bases del Plan

Nacional de Desarrollo 2018–2022” (2019); https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Prensa/PND-2018-2022-Interactivo.pdf [in Spanish] .

5. Instituto de Hidrologia, Meteorologia, y Estudios Ambientales, “Resultados Monitoreo de la Deforestacion (2017); http://documentacion.ideam.gov.co/openbiblio/bvirtual/023835/Resultados_Monitoreo_Deforestacion_2017.pdf.

6. H. R. Grau, M. Aide, Ecol. Soc. 13 , 16 (2008). 7. Ministry of the Environment of the Republic of

Colombia, “Colombia finaliza el proceso de ratificación del Acuerdo de París frente al cambio climático” (2018); www.minambiente.gov.co/index.php/noticias/4013-colombia-finaliza-el-proceso-de-ratificacion-del-acuerdo-de-paris-frente-al-cambio-climatico [in Spanish].

8. “Colombia, Germany, Norway and the UK announce groundbreaking partnership to protect Colombia’s rain-forest (2015); https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/colombia/id2464811/.

9. Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, “Corte Suprema ordena protección inmediata de la Amazonía Colombiana” (2018); www.cortesuprema.gov.co/corte/index.php/2018/04/05/corte-suprema-ordena-proteccion-inmediata-de-la-amazonia-colombiana/ [in Spanish].

10. Departamento Nacional de Planeación DNP, “Tiempos de implementación del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo” (www.dnp.gov.co/Plan-Nacional-de-Desarrollo/Paginas/Tiempos-de-implementacion-del-Plan-Nacional-de-Desarrollo.aspx) [in Spanish].

11. Dejusticia, “#CambiemosLaMeta: Solicitamos que se modifique la meta de deforestación propuesta en el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo” (2019); www.dejusticia.org/solicitamos-que-modifique-la-tasa-de-deforestacion-propuesta-en-el-plan-nacional-de-desarrollo/ [in Spanish].

10.1126/science.aax3494

Consent insufficient for data releaseIn their Policy Forum “Toward unrestricted

use of public genomic data” (25 January,

p. 350), R. I. Amann et al. argue that once

data has been cleared for release to the

public domain by institutions, it should

be open for use without further restric-

tions. However, they neglect the key point

that researchers and their institutions

are entrusted by research participants,

funders, and others with weighing the

pros and cons of public data release. By

suggesting that informed consent can

provide a straightforward path to data

release, they overlook evidence that once

people understand their options, only a

little more than half opt for open data

sharing, and some refuse data sharing

altogether (1, 2).

This evidence further shows that some

research participants have concerns that

uses of their data might not fit with their

norms or values or might disadvantage cer-

tain populations. Despite their openness to

wide use, they do not think ethics review

and informed consent are sufficient to

remove restrictions on the release of sensi-

tive human data. Simply put, informed

consent is a necessary, but far from suf-

ficient condition for data sharing (3, 4).

Equally important, Amann et al.’s

proposal for data sharing through open-

access databases does not reflect funders’

policies. Rather, funders expect and, in

some cases, mandate that researchers

adopt specific organizational measures

to safeguard personal data. For example,

the National Institutes of Health (NIH)

policy on genomic data sharing explicitly

requires that data generators develop

genomic data sharing plans and data

users submit their requests to data access

committees for review (5). The impera-

tive for adequate data governance has

also been stressed by other major funding

agencies, such as the Wellcome Trust

Expert Advisory Group on Data Access (6).

Admittedly, poorly designed regulation

can stifle legitimate genomic data sharing

that promotes the public good. Regulatory

frameworks do, however, serve critical pur-

poses, including ensuring consideration of

the intricate ethical, legal, social, and polit-

ical concerns inherent in many aspects of

science, including genomics. Amann et al.’s

uncritical use of the notion of “openness”

suggests that once data have been made

open, their use is unaffected by structural

issues such as the unequal distribution of

power and influence. This is particularly

problematic in cases of for-profit enter-

prises that are not accountable to the

public (7). Although Amann et al.’s sugges-

tions seem emancipatory and respectful of

ethical concerns, their proposal overlooks

the wider political economy in which data

use is embedded and conflates ethics with

a rather formulaic adherence to legal and

institutional guidelines and consent forms.

This complex challenge cannot be

solved with a single model for data shar-

ing governance. The currently favored

model of controlled-access data shar-

ing adopted by NIH and others is far

from perfect (8). Better alternatives are

emerging, such as the Global Alliance

for Genomics & Health’s Beacon feder-

ated model for data sharing (9). We need

approaches to data sharing that address,

on a case-by-case basis, how public release

of data affects distribution of burdens and

benefits across and within populations.

Dianne Nicol1*, Lisa Eckstein1, Heidi Beate

Bentzen2,3, Pascal Borry4, Mike Burgess5,

Wylie Burke6, Don Chalmers1, Mildred

Cho7, Edward Dove8, Stephanie Fullerton6,

Ryuchi Ida9, Kazuto Kato10, Jane Kaye11,

Barbara Koenig12, Spero Manson13,

Kimberlyn McGrail5, Eric Meslin14,

Kieran O’Doherty15, Barbara Prainsack16,

Mahsa Shabani17, Holly Tabor7, Adrian

Thorogood18, Jantina de Vries19

1Law Faculty, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia. 2Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, 0130 Oslo, Norway. 3Centre for Medical Ethics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, 0318 Oslo, Norway. 4Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium 5School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada. 6School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. 7Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 8School of Law, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, UK. 9Shiga University, Shiga 522-8522, Japan. 10Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka University, Osaka 565-0871, Japan. 11Centre for Health, Law, and Emergent Technologies, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 12School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. 13Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. 14Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa, ON K2P 2K3, Canada. 15Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2WY, Canada. 16Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, 1140 Vienna, Austria. 17Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, University of Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.

Colombia’s government

has not taken action to

mitigate deforestation.

Published by AAAS

on March 13, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

sciencemag.org SCIENCE

18Centre of Genomics Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada. 19Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7925, South Africa.*Corresponding author. Email: dianne.nicol@utas.edu.auAll authors sign this letter in their personal capacities, not as spokespersons for any institution or organization with which they are affiliated.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. A. L. McGuire et al., Genet. Med. 13, 948 (2011). 2. N. Shah et al., Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 10.1038/s41431-019-

0344-2 (2019). 3. J. Teng et al., Intl. J. Pop. Data Sci. 3, 364 (2018). 4. R. E. McWhirter et al., J. Pers. Med. 4, 459 (2014). 5. NIH, NIH GDS Policies (https://osp.od.nih.gov/

scientific-sharing/policies/). 6. Expert Advisory Group on Data Access, “Governance

of data access” (2015); https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/governance-of-data-access-eagda-jun15.pdf.

7. S. Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for the Future at the New Frontier of Power (PublicAffairs, 2019).

8. D. Mascalzoni et al., Ann. Intern. Med. 170, 332 (2019). 9. The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, Science 352,

1278 (2016).

10.1126/science.aax0892

Response

Nicol et al. make insightful comments on

issues related to data sharing and ethics,

regulations, and imbalance of power. We

largely share their concerns, and we did

indeed mention some of them briefly in

our Policy Forum. Our discussion pertained

to all types of data, many or most of which

do not include any personal information

or do not involve individuals or humans

in any way. For example, environmental

genomics data generated through public

funding should become available shortly

after generation and should enjoy unre-

stricted usage. As we acknowledged in the

Policy Forum, when it comes to personal

data, issues of privacy, confidentiality, and

informed consent need to be considered

carefully and the best arrangements may

vary on a case-by-case basis. It makes

sense to anticipate these issues before data

collection begins and to aim for research

designs and informed consent forms that

allow maximal, prompt, open use of valu-

able data.

We agree with Nicol et al. that public

release of data may affect distribution of

burdens and benefits across and within

populations, and this is something that

should be closely monitored. However, we

think that usually more openness would

diminish the inadvertent concentration

of informational power in the hands of

select for-profit enterprises that may wish

to hoard data for their own advantage.

Conversely, the public release of data may

offer more value for the public and more

widely distributed benefits of science.

Rudolf I. Amann, Shakuntala Baichoo,

Benjamin J. Blencowe, Peer Bork,

INSIGHTS | LETTERS

Mark Borodovsky, Cath Brooksbank,

Patrick S. G. Chain, Rita R. Colwell,

Daniele G. Daffonchio, Antoine Danchin,

Victor de Lorenzo, Pieter C. Dorrestein,

Robert D. Finn, Claire M. Fraser, Jack

A. Gilbert, Steven J. Hallam, Philip

Hugenholtz, John P. A. Ioannidis*, Janet

K. Jansson, Jihyun F. Kim, Hans-Peter

Klenk, Martin G. Klotz, Rob Knight,

Konstantinos T. Konstantinidis, Nikos

C. Kyrpides, Christopher E. Mason, Alice

C. McHardy, Folker Meyer, Christos A.

Ouzounis, Aristides A. N. Patrinos, Mircea

Podar, Katherine S. Pollard, Jacques

Ravel, Alejandro Reyes Muñoz, Richard J.

Roberts, Ramon Rosselló-Móra, Susanna-

Assunta Sansone, Patrick D. Schloss,

Lynn M. Schriml, João C. Setubal, Rotem

Sorek, Rick L. Stevens, James M. Tiedje,

Adrian Turjanski, Gene W. Tyson, David W.

Ussery, George M. Weinstock, Owen White,

William B. Whitman, Ioannis Xenarios*Corresponding author. Email: jioannid@stanford.eduThe list of author affiliations is available at www.sciencemag.org/content/363/6425/350/suppl/DC1.

10.1126/science.aax7509

TECHNICAL COMMENT ABSTRACTS

Comment on “Quantifying hot

carrier and thermal contributions in

plasmonic photocatalysis”

Yonatan Sivan, Joshua Baraban,

Ieng Wai Un, Yonatan Dubi

Zhou et al. (Reports, 5 October 2018, p. 69)

claim to have proven dominance of “hot”

electrons over thermal effects in plasmonic

photocatalysis. We identify experimental

flaws that caused overestimation of the

hot carrier contribution. As an alternative

interpretation, we fully reproduce their data

using a purely thermal Arrhenius law with a

fixed activation energy and intensity-

dependent heating.

Full text: dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9367

Response to Comment on “Quantifying

hot carrier and thermal contributions in

plasmonic photocatalysis”

Linan Zhou, Dayne F. Swearer,

Hossein Robatjazi, Alessandro Alabastri,

Phillip Christopher, Emily A. Carter,

Peter Nordlander, Naomi J. Halas

Sivan et al. claim that the methods used to

distinguish thermal from hot carrier effects

in our recent report are inaccurate and

that our data can be explained by a purely

thermal mechanism with a fixed activation

energy. This conclusion is invalid, because

they substantially misinterpret the emissiv-

ity of the photocatalyst and assume a linear

intensity–dependent temperature in their

model that is unrealistic.

Full text: dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9545

For adetailedbrochure,please call (800) 252-4910

All prices are per person twin share + air

17050 Montebello RdCupertino, California 95014

Email: AAASInfo@betchartexpeditions.comwww.betchartexpeditions.com

BETCHART EXPEDITIONS Inc.

Members and friends ofAAAS are invited to join

AAAS Travels on fascinatingtrips to all 7 contintents!

Discover the amazing antiquitiesand colossalmonuments ofEgypt. Visit the fabulous new

Alexandria Library andNationalMuseum, the great stone ramparts

of the Temple of Ramses II atAbu Simbel, and the ultimate

monuments of theOldKingdom,theGreat Pyramids and Sphinx!Explore the Valley of theKingsand cruise on theNile. Delight inthe exquisite Nubia and LuxorMuseums. $4,995 pp + air.

Discover EgyptNovember 3-17, 2019

Join us aswe exploreNepal, one ofAsia’smost enchanting and sceniclands!Nepal offers an unsurpassedwealth of ecological and culturaldiversity. Highlights include theKathmanduValley, the tranquillandscapes of Pokhara, the

birthplace of Buddha in Lumbini,and thewildlife ofChitwanNational Park. Youmay go

flightseeing past Everest the last dayfor an extraordinary look at the

world’s highest peak!$ 3,995 + air + optional Everest flight

NEPALNovember 4-18, 2019

Published by AAAS

on March 13, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

RetractionA. Lin, T. Satsukawa, M. Wang, Z. Mohammadi Asl and R. Fueta

DOI: 10.1126/science.aax6803 (6439), 444.364Science 

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6439/444.1

CONTENTRELATED http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/354/6314/869.full

REFERENCES

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6439/444.1#BIBLThis article cites 1 articles, 1 of which you can access for free

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the

is a registered trademark of AAAS.ScienceScience, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. The title (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement ofScience

Science. No claim to original U.S. Government WorksCopyright © 2019 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of

on March 13, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from