Nikon Revokes AI Altered Microscope Video's Winning Title

Nikon has stripped an optical researcher's video of its winning title in the 2026 Small World in Motion photomicrography contest after determining that the entry violated rules governing generative artificial intelligence. The decision followed scrutiny of images depicting airway tissue cilia from a child with primary ciliary dyskinesia, which experts questioned because some structures appeared inconsistent with biology.

The disqualified entry was submitted by Ning Xu, an optical engineer at the National University of Singapore. Nikon replaced Xu's video with an entry by Nguyen Nam Nhat of Vietnam, featuring a roundworm and a single-celled organism called Dileptus, according to the contest's spokesperson, Remi Yuter.

Yuter said Nikon reviewed the video and its supporting materials again before consulting members of the judging panel. The organization concluded that the submission did not meet its eligibility requirements for generative AI use.

"After thoroughly re-evaluating the video and supporting materials and consulting with members of our judging panel, Nikon has determined that the winning video did not comply with the competition rules regarding generative AI," Remi Yuter, a spokesperson for the contest, told Gizmodo via email.

The dispute gained attention after experts questioned biological features in Xu's video, including red, blue, and purple structures that appeared altered beyond recognition or potentially fabricated. The footage also contained a SynthID watermark associated with AI-generated content.

Xu explained that the video began with genuine research footage but acknowledged using generative AI during postprocessing. His entry has since been removed from the contest's winners page.

Robert Hirst, a scientist at the University of Leicester who has spent two decades examining cilia in patients with primary ciliary dyskinesia, questioned whether the imagery accurately represented the condition. He told the BBC:

"I have been diagnosing PCD for 20 years by examining their cilia waveform, length, cell size and shape," University of Leicester scientist Robert Hirst told the BBC.

Hirst also challenged the biological appearance of the structures depicted in the video and raised concerns about the broader consequences for people affected by the disorder.

"[Looks] nothing like those from PCD patients," Hirst said, adding that the incident had a negative impact on PCD patients, doctors, and support networks worldwide.

Yuter emphasized that the decision concerned compliance with the competition's rules rather than a broader assessment of Xu's work or motives. The contest also indicated that its policies and review processes could change in response to the controversy.

"Nikon has adjusted the competition rankings to reflect this decision," Yuter wrote, noting the decision was based entirely on eligibility rules and "should not be interpreted as a judgment of the entrant's professional reputation, scientific contributions, or intent."

Yuter said Nikon Small World would review its rules and evaluation procedures for future entries. The case has also highlighted questions about how scientific imaging should be handled when AI tools can change the visual data captured by research instruments.

Scientific image guidelines developed before the rise of generative AI have emphasized disclosure when researchers add color to images. Generative systems raise a distinct concern because they can create or alter pixels rather than merely change how existing data are displayed.

Melanie White, a developmental biologist at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, previously told Nature that researchers must be able to trust the connection between scientific images and the measurements underlying them.

Xu did not respond to Gizmodo's request for comment, according to the publication.