Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct (/thread-23814.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct (/thread-23814.html)
Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - 82lsju - 11-29-2022
if this is too far afield please delete
Quote:A prominent research journal is reviewing a paper co-authored by University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne for scientific misconduct following public allegations that the research contains multiple altered images.
Three other papers published[b] [/b]in Science and Nature by the University president also contain “serious problems,” according to Elisabeth Bik, a biologist and science misconduct investigator routinely featured in outlets such as The New York Times, The New Yorker and Nature, who was contacted by The Daily last month to review several separate allegations. Tessier-Lavigne is the lead author on two of these papers.
Bik’s suspicions of manipulated imagery were corroborated independently in interviews by The Daily with two other misconduct researchers who reviewed the papers. Allegations regarding these four papers and multiple others have been made repeatedly over the last seven years on PubPeer, a site that allows scientists to identify suspected anomalies in publications.
...
The University acknowledged “issues” in the papers but downplayed Tessier-Lavigne’s role in the potential misconduct in a statement Monday night.
Spokesperson Dee Mostofi wrote Tessier-Lavigne “was not involved in any way in the generation or presentation of the panels that have been queried”[b] [/b]in two of the papers, including the paper under review, which was published in The European Microbiology Organization (EMBO) Journal. Of the other two, the University wrote that the issues “do not affect the data, results or interpretation of the papers.”
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/29/stanford-presidents-research-under-investigation-for-scientific-misconduct-university-admits-mistakes/
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - Phogge - 11-29-2022
Fire him. Hire Condi.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - thunder_chik - 11-29-2022
Sounds like a tempest in a teapot.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - needle - 11-29-2022
In the U.S., questionable research supported by certain government funds can lead to formal sanctions if there is a finding of misconduct by the federal Office of Research Integrity.
ORI seems to put the onus to investigate on the institution that employed/hosted the researcher. The federal agency then takes steps to review the institution’s findings to make a determination if misconduct took place.
These ORI findings are pretty rare, but one such finding led to the resignation of a top academic at UNC earlier this year:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/vice-chancellor-blames-pressure-for-1064227/
I don’t know where (what institution) MTL was at when these possibly falsified images were submitted for publication, or if he/his fellow researchers got US finding to do their work, so this may fall completely out of ORI’s jurisdiction.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - 81alum - 11-29-2022
If it can be shown that he knew or participated in the falsification, then he is toast. But if, for example, he was one of multiple co-authors of whom only one was responsible for the falisified images (which seems most likely,) then he escapes the worst of it and merely looks to be less than vigilant about what he puts his name to. Not a good look, but not career-threatening.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - BostonCard - 11-29-2022
This is a big deal, full stop. You can make an excuse for the papers where he is a middle author, though all authors are supposed to attest to their contribution to the paper and the integrity of the data. In practice, this is challenging for a very renowned author who has hundreds of papers, so I might excuse it with a slap on the wrist, but if science wants to become more reliable, it needs to start holding all authors to that standard.
The big deal are these papers: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1058445 and https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1059391. Tessier-Levine is the senior author here, and is accountable for it. Moreover, they were published in one of the top two journals (along with Nature), so they are a BIG deal papers.
Quote:In several places, gel bands seem to show duplication within images — Bik said this could be a way to avoid showing certain results. The University disagreed, saying, “These mistakes also do not affect results or interpretation.” One of the research misconduct experts who reviewed figures for The Daily but spoke on the condition of anonymity in light of the sensitivity of the allegations said in response that Tessier-Lavigne “should produce the original materials to support that claim.” Neither the University nor Tessier-Lavigne responded to The Daily’s request for such evidence.
While it is possible that the University is right and the image manipulations (hard to call them mistakes, because that would suggest mere sloppiness) didn't affect the results or interpretations, they are a) very suspicious and b) wrong regardless. And the University should not be issuing statements like this. These are serious accusations, and they deserve to be fully explored, both by the journal and the University; dismissing them out of hand establishes a very
As President of the University (and one of the top ones in the world), Tessier-Levine should be held to the highest standards. He sets the example for thousands of faculty members at the University and elsewhere, and if the message around it is that if your President commits possible academic fraud the University circles its wagons around him and dismisses the concerns, what does it tell your average post-doc or junior faculty member who is scratching and clawing to make tenure. It is a horrible precedent.
The best case scenario (aside from Bik being wrong, which I doubt) is that he was a sloppy supervisor, and the first author (Elke Stein, likely a grad student or post-doc) manipulated the images without Tessier-Levine's knowledge, and that the images were just altered to clean up artifact or other cosmetic changes, and not to change the data. That's still really bad, and warrants a full investigation and if it is held up, some sort of sanction. In the worst case, where he participated in the image manipulation, and it was done to significantly change the findings, it should be career threatening.
BC
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - 82lsju - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 10:22 AM)needle Wrote: In the U.S., questionable research supported by certain government funds can lead to formal sanctions if there is a finding of misconduct by the federal Office of Research Integrity.
ORI seems to put the onus to investigate on the institution that employed/hosted the researcher. The federal agency then takes steps to review the institution’s findings to make a determination if misconduct took place.
These ORI findings are pretty rare, but one such finding led to the resignation of a top academic at UNC earlier this year:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/vice-chancellor-blames-pressure-for-1064227/
I don’t know where (what institution) MTL was at when these possibly falsified images were submitted for publication, or if he/his fellow researchers got US finding to do their work, so this may fall completely out of ORI’s jurisdiction.
in the 2008 paper
https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/emboj.2008.86
it shows him as the ninth of 11 authors (the Daily article says third of 11)
Ahmad Bechara, Homaira Nawabi, Frédéric Moret, Avraham Yaron, Eli Weaver, Muriel Bozon, Karima Abouzid, Jun-Lin Guan, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, Vance Lemmon, Valérie Castellani
and his affiliation with
University of San Francisco, Genentech Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - washingtonismoney - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 10:09 AM)thunder_chik Wrote: Sounds like a tempest in a teapot.
If true, it could be a very serious finding against MTL's ethics as a researcher; the university's answer looks pretty evasive. More to find out, but I think this is potentially a big deal.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - M T - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 11:21 AM)BostonCard Wrote: The big deal are these papers: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1058445 and https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1059391. Tessier-Levine is the senior author here, and is accountable for it. Moreover, they were published in one of the top two journals (along with Nature), so they are a BIG deal papers.Those two papers (Feb & Mar 2001) have the same first author (Elke Stein) whose bio is here.
Quote:In Fall of 1997 I started my postdoctoral training with Marc Tessier-Lavigne at UCSF. Here my studies provided key insights into the molecular mechanism that developing axons use to contribute to the establishment of the neuronal circuit in vertebrates. My favorite and most frequent comment that I liked to hear from Marc Tessier-Lavigne was “go for it”, thus giving me totally independence in my research.Apparently currently a Visiting Faculty Scholar at Stanford (but I haven't confirmed that is actually current).
In 2003 I was recruited to Yale University as a Faculty member in the Department of MCDBiology with a joined appointment in the Department of Cell Biology in the Yale School of Medicine.
2001.... 21 years ago (probably submitted a year before that). In those days, just getting a paper into the right format for a journal was a feat. I can imagine getting graphics so they print right was also a challenge. For instance, different monitors & printers would show (or not show) different colors. I get the sense that some people have a new tool (image manipulation detection) and are assuming that any manipulation is for the purposes of falsifying results. If someone published the same data without the accompanying image, I guess they get a pass. However, I haven't read any details on this particular concern, so I don't know what corroborating or contradicting evidence there is that the data isn't legitimate.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - Maple Leaf - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 09:54 AM)Phogge Wrote: Fire him. Hire Condi.
Fire him. Hire Hardballs both as Prez and Head Coach, two for one who will be able to solve NIL & Free Agency.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - Softball Fan - 11-29-2022
"
Quote:Spokesperson Dee Mostofi wrote Tessier-Lavigne “was not involved in any way in the generation or presentation of the panels that have been queried” in two of the papers, including the paper under review,..."
"...reviewing the allegations regarding a 2008 paper about receptors within the brain for which Tessier-Lavigne is listed as the third author of 11."
Is MTL responsible for every detail the other 10 authors did? I've co-written many papers with multiple authors. In my experience it wasn't realistic to check every piece of data, every graph, and all the research done by the other authors. I checked a lot for sure but at the same time I assumed there was integrity in my co-authors.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - MV72018 - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 10:22 AM)needle Wrote: In the U.S., questionable research supported by certain government funds can lead to formal sanctions if there is a finding of misconduct by the federal Office of Research Integrity.
ORI seems to put the onus to investigate on the institution that employed/hosted the researcher. The federal agency then takes steps to review the institution’s findings to make a determination if misconduct took place.
These ORI findings are pretty rare, but one such finding led to the resignation of a top academic at UNC earlier this year:
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/vice-chancellor-blames-pressure-for-1064227/
I don’t know where (what institution) MTL was at when these possibly falsified images were submitted for publication, or if he/his fellow researchers got US finding to do their work, so this may fall completely out of ORI’s jurisdiction.
EVERY CO-AUTHOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING THE INTEGRITY OF THE IDEAS, DATA, AND IMAGES OF THE PAPER ON WHICH HER/HIS NAME APPEARS. Outsourcing that critical checking work is negligent and ethically irresponsible.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - BostonCard - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 12:32 PM)M T Wrote: 2001.... 21 years ago (probably submitted a year before that). In those days, just getting a paper into the right format for a journal was a feat. I can imagine getting graphics so they print right was also a challenge. For instance, different monitors & printers would show (or not show) different colors. I get the sense that some people have a new tool (image manipulation detection) and are assuming that any manipulation is for the purposes of falsifying results. If someone published the same data without the accompanying image, I guess they get a pass. However, I haven't read any details on this particular concern, so I don't know what corroborating or contradicting evidence there is that the data isn't legitimate.
This is beyond simply adjusting the contrast and brightness to make it look better or easier to read. This would be akin to opening photoshop and using the eraser or stamp tool. The question was whether those tools were used to delete the equivalent of a photobombed on the background or smoothing some wrinkles or the equivalent of erasing an ex from a picture of you as a couple or adding the Eiffel Tower to the background of a photo to claim you were in Paris. The analysis shows that it was highly likely the image was manipulated; it can’t tell you the motivation and whether it changed the underlying results. Only a full investigation can do that.
BC
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - dabigv13 - 11-29-2022
YIKES!
Quote:A 2001 study for which Tessier-Lavigne is the lead author with just one other researcher has more than 700 citations — a towering amount in a field where most papers scarcely get ten. According to Bik, this paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Science, contains figures with image alteration. “The photoshopping was done intentionally, there’s no way around it,” said Bik in an interview with The Daily after examining the areas surrounding gel bands for patterns and with forensic tools, though she added the motivation was unclear and could have been something other than falsification.
Playing around with blots like this is very shady, and does not seem excusable as something so simple as making the picture look nice.
Stanford needs to do a real actual investigation, and probably MTL needs to go. If this was one or two middle author papers, that's one thing. Would be easy to miss an intentional or unintentional manipulation of a figure. But this is a lot of papers and includes ones where he is the lead author! Inexcusable.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - Phogge - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 02:30 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: YIKES!
Quote:A 2001 study for which Tessier-Lavigne is the lead author with just one other researcher has more than 700 citations — a towering amount in a field where most papers scarcely get ten. According to Bik, this paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Science, contains figures with image alteration. “The photoshopping was done intentionally, there’s no way around it,” said Bik in an interview with The Daily after examining the areas surrounding gel bands for patterns and with forensic tools, though she added the motivation was unclear and could have been something other than falsification.
Playing around with blots like this is very shady, and does not seem excusable as something so simple as making the picture look nice.
Stanford needs to do a real actual investigation, and probably MTL needs to go. If this was one or two middle author papers, that's one thing. Would be easy to miss an intentional or unintentional manipulation of a figure. But this is a lot of papers and includes ones where he is the lead author! Inexcusable.
YIKES! You can't be Joe Starkey... can you?
(11-29-2022, 12:38 PM)Maple Leaf Wrote:(11-29-2022, 09:54 AM)Phogge Wrote: Fire him. Hire Condi.
Fire him. Hire Hardballs both as Prez and Head Coach, two for one who will be able to solve NIL & Free Agency.
ALL TIME POSTY! Got to be a Thunderdomer. How about giving him the hoops team too?
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - 81alum - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 11:21 AM)BostonCard Wrote: The big deal are these papers: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1058445 and https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1059391. Tessier-Levine is the senior author here, and is accountable for it. Moreover, they were published in one of the top two journals (along with Nature), so they are a BIG deal papers.Wow, I just couldn't believe that he would have been lead author on an article with falsified images. But I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing this out, BC.
BC
I supposed it is possible there will be other information that comes to light that might change how we perceive this, but at this point I'm inclined to think he should resign and save himself and the University even more embarrassment and grief. It is untenable to have the President of the world's premier research university under this kind of cloud.
Question to anyone who knows: Is it the Provost or the President in Stanford's system who had the final approval on tenure and promotion?
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - dabigv13 - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 02:35 PM)Phogge Wrote: YIKES! You can't be Joe Starkey... can you?
Mods, this surely qualifies as an ad hominem attack!
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - chimera - 11-29-2022
All I can say is wow. Looking at some of those images where blots or portions of them were re-used or otherwise messed with, I don't see how anyone who was intimately involved in the work would miss that stuff. I used to work in a research lab at UCSF, and I did a whole lot of similar types of blots, and I know how we used to fuss over the results. Years later I can still picture some in my head. We were always worrying if there could be any artifacts that make things look real but are just noise, how reproducible, etc., etc. We did them over and over and over to be sure. Well I did, anyway. The PI I worked with would have seen right away if what was shown in the Daily story ended up on her desk.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - needle - 11-29-2022
I posted earlier about the federal Office of Research Integrity, but it looks like they are time-barred from investigating. A complaint generally must be lodged within six years of the alleged misconduct. Doesn’t appear that happened.
Quote:. • Limitations period. Because of the problems that may occur in investigating older allegations and the potential unfairness to the respondent in defending against them, the new rule is limited to research misconduct occurring within six years of the date on which HHS or the institution receives the allegation of misconduct, unless: (1) the respondent continues or renews any incident of alleged research misconduct that occurred outside the six-year limit through the citation, republication or other use for the potential benefit of the respondent of the research record that is the subject of the allegation; (2) ORI, or the institution, following consultation with ORI, determines that the alleged misconduct, if it occurred, would possibly have a substantial adverse effect on the health or safety of the public; or (3) if HHS or the institution received the allegation before the effective date of the new rule. Section 93.105
https://ori.hhs.gov/policies-regulations-qa
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - fullmetal - 11-29-2022
This is WAY more of a behavioral violation than Katie Meyer's coffee spill, and the university ought to treat it as such. But we'll see.