On September 30, 2025, Dr. Alfonso Dueñas-González, a recognized oncologist and researcher at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología (INCAN) with 27 years of service at the institution, Highest National Researcher Level of the National System of Researchers (SNI), member of the National Academy of Medicine and the Mexican Academy of Sciences, repatriated by CONACYT in 1999, and recipient of awards including the Miguel Alemán Prize 2005, National University Distinction for Young Academics (2012), Pfizer-PUIS UNAM Chair (2006), and Canifarma 2007, 2011, 2018, was notified by the Internal Control Body of the Secretariat of Health (OIC) in Official Letter No. SABG/420/OICSALUD/AR/1188/2025 of his dismissal as a researcher, along with a six-month ineligibility from holding public office in the public sector. A direct excerpt from the official letter states: "...it is warned that Mr. ALFONSO DUEÑAS GONZÁLEZ had the intention to carry out acts of workplace harassment against Mr. OSCAR GERARDO ARRIETA RODRÍGUEZ through a series of repeated and constant acts aimed at intimidating and harming his person, with the object of emotionally exhausting him, which consequently caused emotional afflictions that provoked psychological harm, putting at risk the prestige of the National Cancer Institute..." This case underscores the paramount importance of academic freedom, a fundamental principle that must be protected to ensure the integrity of our scientific community.

The dismissal appears to stem from academic and scientific critiques made by Dr. Dueñas regarding Dr. Arrieta's published research. Dr. Dueñas informed Dr. Arrieta on multiple occasions of identified errors in the article. They requested corrections, noting potential risks to the prestige of INCAN and the broader reputation of Mexican cancer research.

In response, Dr. Arrieta, in his capacity as Director, filed complaints against Dr. Dueñas with several bodies, including the INCAN Ethics Committee, the Honor Board of the Ministry of Health, and the SNI Honor Board under the SECIHTI (formerly CONACYT). The INCAN Ethics Committee, in its initial ruling (File INCAN-CE-065-2024, dated August 23, 2024), determined that "academic and cyber harassment are not elements contemplated as infractions in the Code of Conduct of the National Cancer Institute nor in the Code of Ethics of the Federal Public Administration, and that it lacks the technical faculties or authority to delve deeper into the investigations." However, in a subsequent ruling (File CE-INCAN-004/2024, dated December 18, 2024), it found against Dr. Dueñas, citing "harassment, bullying, and defamation in the scientific field toward Dr. Arrieta". The Honor Board of the Secretariat of Health, exceeded its mandate by issuing a warning, stated: "The Honor Board, by virtue of the facts and to guarantee the integrity of our community, warns Dr. Dueñas that, in case of recidivism in these conducts of harassment, bullying, and/or defamation, proceedings will be initiated for the suspension of his distinction as a researcher of the Institutional System of Researchers of the Secretariat of Health for a determined time" (Official Letter No. DGPIS-115.2025, dated April 11, 2025). Notably, Dr. Dueñas filed a complaint against Dr. Arrieta with the same Honor Board on May 28, 2025, which remains ignored as of this date. The SNI Honor Board ruled as follows: 1) Apply a private admonition to Dr. Alfonso Dueñas. 2) Exhort Dr Arrieta to contain the conflict and not divert attention from his primary activity, which is the well-being of the patient community of that medical institution, given that he represents its authority (Official Letter No. C223/DSN-0739/2025, dated June 25, 2025). Dr. Arrieta proceeded to escalate the matter to the OIC of the Secretariat of Health, resulting in the dismissal above.

Regarding the substance of the critiques, Dr. Dueñas identified a significant number of errors in 33 publications by Dr. Arrieta. As of October 2025, three corrections have been published in the journals Vaccines (Basel), 2025, doi: 10.3390/vaccines13090913; Current Oncology, 2024, doi: 10.3390/curroncol31110529. The corrected article in Vaccines reportedly retains some errors, and the observer for the correction in Epigenetics 2018, doi: 10.1186/s13148-018-0537-5, remains unidentified. Additionally, three further corrections are accepted or pending publication: a second correction to Current Oncology 2024; a correction to doi: 10.3390/curroncol30010027; and a correction to Frontiers in Oncology 2023, doi: 10.3389/fonc. 2023.1251620. Moreover, 27 publications are under investigation (Elsevier: 16; Springer Nature: 3; Wiley: 3; Frontiers: 3; ASCO JGO: 3), with observations submitted on others awaiting editorial response.

However, Dr. Arrieta never demonstrated the professional ethics, humility, or capacity for self-criticism necessary to promptly acknowledge his errors—errors that anyone can make, as to err is human. Consequently, upon feeling exposed nationally and internationally, he leveraged all his power and influence to pressure the Director of the Institute of Biomedical Research (IIB) at UNAM, Dr. María Imelda López Villaseñor, resulting in Dr. Dueñas's dismissal from his position as Full Researcher C, Pride D, at UNAM on November 25, 2024, despite his 25 years of service.

This matter raises serious concerns about the establishment of precedents for handling academic criticism within public institutions. A similar case involves Dr. Jaime Alberto Coronel Martínez, an oncologist and researcher at INCAN, whom Dr. Arrieta dismissed on May 8, 2025. Despite Dr. Coronel reporting this act to the OIC of the INCAN, this body remained silent. However, Dr. Arrieta pressed the Ethics Committee to adopt a condemnatory resolution against Dr. Coronel, which was used to justify the dismissal. On September 22, 2025, the Ethics Committee exonerated Dr. Arrieta in relation to that incident (File CE-INCAN/123/2025). These cases underscore the urgent need for institutional accountability and oversight to address such issues and ensure the integrity of our scientific community.

The dismissal and ineligibility of Dr. Dueñas implicate protections under Articles 6 and 7 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States, as well as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerning freedom of expression. The proceedings frame academic and scientific critique as workplace harassment, potentially limiting such discourse. Furthermore, the claim of psychological harm from criticism suggests the need for an independent mental health evaluation for Dr. Arrieta. A negative result would indicate that no such harm occurred, while a positive result could raise questions about suitability for a leadership role that requires resilience in the face of scrutiny. By analogy, applying this standard to public officials, such as former presidents or President Claudia Sheinbaum, would imply sanctions against routine media critics or political opponents, which is not the practice. Freedom of expression should be upheld without undue restrictions, particularly in scientific contexts. Actions to silence critics under mental health pretexts may undermine public trust in institutional leadership. 

The dismissals of Drs. Dueñas and Coronel coincide with ongoing challenges in cancer care at INCAN. Two years into Dr. Arrieta's tenure as Director—the lead body for national cancer public policies—issues persist, including 3- to 4-month wait times for initial consultations and oncological procedures (surgeries, chemotherapy, radiotherapy), where delays critically impact outcomes; escalating shortages of oncological medications; unresolved labor demands among INCAN staff; and delays in establishing the National Cancer Registry. These matters warrant attention to ensure alignment with policies from the Presidency of the Republic and the Ministry of Health. If the role contributes to psychological strain, professional standards may necessitate reevaluation of suitability. 

We call for prompt intervention by the Presidency of the Republic, Secretariat of Health, Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Government, and the Superior Audit Office of the Federation to: audit INCAN's budget; investigate causes of medication shortages and care delays; and examine potential conflicts of interest between Dr. Arrieta and the pharmaceutical industry. Relevant filings include complaints to the Anti-Corruption and Good Governance Secretariat (SIDEC platform) regarding omissions in Dr. Arrieta's 2025 asset declaration, which corresponds to 2024 (Files 69854/2025 and 32914/2025). The declaration reports income of around 455,000  USD (https://servidorespublicos.gob.mx/dcaa2851-8685-4d95-a591-9dbd846cd109 with 167,000 USD unaccounted for. In his publications, Dr. Arrieta discloses personal payments from pharmaceutical entities (Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche), which are not reflected in the declaration. Dr. Arrieta has not complied with INAI resolutions to disclose third-party resource usage at INCAN (including self-payments): July 2024 (File 330018624000224, Case RRA 5532/24); February 2025 (File 330018624000626, Case RRA 529/25); September 2025 (File 330018625000153, Case INCANAI2501195). The INCAN Board of Governors noted in its second ordinary session on October 25, 2023: "At the INCAN, there is the Accounting Unit for External Resources, which handles these funds but has been used discretionally by the Research Directorate for a long time and its structure is under the Research Directorate, there is much opacity in the handling of these third-party resources."

Dr. Arrieta's removal from the Directorship is recommended due to the handling of these personnel matters, unresolved operational challenges in patient care, deviation from the committed work plan, and reputational impacts from unaddressed publication errors. The pattern of errors across multiple publications raises questions of potential scientific misconduct, contributing to international scrutiny that affects INCAN's standing, national research integrity, and the field of Mexican oncology. While institutional influence may resolve internal disputes, international peers question Dr. Arrieta's reliability, as responses to editors have characterized critiques as "political attacks" rather than engaging substantively with them. The critiques from Dr. Dueñas highlight issues that warrant institutional response, rather than focusing on the critic.

Prominent scientists, such as Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum, Dr. David Kershenobich, and Dr. Rosaura Ruiz, are urged to address this issue to safeguard Mexico's global research credibility.