[stupac2]

This isn't a "caught up in the excitement" problem.  This is junk science.  Biased sampling followed by improper analysis of already bad data.  This belongs in the trash bin.  I don't even understand why we're arguing about this crap.

I think that BC generally wants to assume the best of people. I happen to agree with you that this is embarrassing, reflects very negatively on Stanford, and rises to the point where some form of professional misconduct investigation should happen, but it's possible to look at this and see acts of good faith, if stunning incompetence.

[stupac2]

This isn't a "caught up in the excitement" problem.  This is junk science.  Biased sampling followed by improper analysis of already bad data.  This belongs in the trash bin.  I don't even understand why we're arguing about this crap.

I think that BC generally wants to assume the best of people. I happen to agree with you that this is embarrassing, reflects very negatively on Stanford, and rises to the point where some form of professional misconduct investigation should happen, but it's possible to look at this and see acts of good faith, if stunning incompetence.