A prestigious scientific photography contest run by Nikon is re-evaluating its winning entry following allegations from the research community that artificial intelligence was improperly used in the creation of the video.
The annual Small World In Motion competition, which has operated for 15 years, showcases imagery and video captured through powerful microscopes. This year’s first prize went to Dr. Ning Xu, a researcher at Tsinghua University in China, for a video depicting cilia—tiny hair-like structures—moving within the airways of a child suffering from a rare disease.
While Xu did not respond directly to the BBC for comment, he addressed concerns on LinkedIn, insisting he adhered to the contest’s guidelines. He acknowledged utilizing AI to enhance reconstructed grayscale images but maintained that the tool was never employed to create the experimental footage, the biological structures themselves, or their movement.
The controversy stems from criticisms leveled by fellow scientists regarding the visual evidence. Dr. Edward Phelps, an associate professor at the University of Florida, pointed out anomalies on Nikon’s social media platforms, noting that certain structures appeared to materialize and vanish unexpectedly. Meanwhile, Ian Donovan, a PhD student at UT Southwestern Medical Centre, argued that the source image contained a watermark commonly associated with AI-generated content. Two former judges of the competition also expressed doubts about the authenticity of the imagery.
Dr. Patrick Hickey, who secured fifth place in the 2026 contest, emphasized that the integrity of the award is paramount. He noted that while scientific microscopy often involves artistic interpretation and colorization, the use of generative AI to fabricate elements violates specific rules prohibiting the creation of non-microscope content.
“If it turns out the winning video was unfairly altered by AI, it would be unfair to the other entrants,” Hickey said, highlighting the delicate balance between scientific accuracy and artistic presentation.
Nikon has stated that Dr. Xu is cooperating with its investigation and has submitted additional technical documentation. Although the company currently asserts that no rules were breached, it announced that an update regarding the situation would be provided soon.
Science demands transparency. I hope Nikon publishes the full investigation results so we can trust future winners are authentic.
It’s a delicate line between artistic interpretation and fabrication. If rules were bent, disqualification is the only fair outcome for other contestants.
Xu insists he only enhanced grayscale images, not created them. We need to see the raw data before passing judgment.
I’m skeptical about the watermark claim without seeing the original files myself. Could be a red herring or compression artifact.
This is alarming. If AI fabricated parts of the cilia movement, it fundamentally undermines the entire purpose of a microscopy competition.