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)
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 03-08-2023
(03-08-2023, 12:14 AM)M T Wrote:Quote:The term lynch law refers to a self-constituted court that imposes sentence on a person without due process of law(britannica.com)
Some are calling to remove him from his position before an investigation is completed. You have clearly made up your mind about the outcome before that.
On December 5, I pointed out the (prior) PubPeer discussions on these issues. I don’t recall that others have ever mentioned them. Is all your information from the news media?
I know what a lynch mob is, you don't need to cite Britannica. This is about a man who can't do his job, because of the scandal his past misconduct has brought, and should be replaced. No one is hanging MTL or putting him in a jail cell. He is not entitled to be a university president by law. As previously noted, he is not the King of Stanford.
MTL is not being charged or investigated for a crime. Whatever investigation the university does will not have the force of subpoena. It will not reach any definitive conclusions. They won't find a smoking gun email from MTL to his postdoc telling him to make up the experiment.
MTL has been investigated. The Daily has multiple corroborating accounts. Again I ask, do you think this is a conspiracy whisper campaign to bring down MTL for whatever purpose? Are all these ex Genentech execs lying?
I read the PubPeer discussions back in December. Do you think there is something exculpatory there? Is there something there that contradicts the reporting of the Daily?
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - StanfordMatt - 03-08-2023
(03-07-2023, 11:29 PM)Jamesy Wrote:(03-07-2023, 11:02 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Hyperbole aside, as this is a sports board, is MTL good for Stanford sports or not. If no, use this as an opportunity to nuke him.
Not sure if this is a good thing or not, but he's also on the PAC-12 executive committee with the UW and WSU presidents.
Zero chance that MTL knows what the PAC-12 is.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 03-08-2023
Remember, from day one of this breaking, Stanford institutionally has tried to evade and deny, which mirrors MTL's alleged response to the initial incident at Genentech. Personally I trust the press over the Stanford investigation, whose inception seems to have been a whitewash though perhaps that will have shifted given the Daily's continued reporting.
Eventually MTL will be let go for this. Stanford should have suspended him months ago pending the outcome of formal investigation, and should still do so now. The longer the wait, the worse the hit to Stanford's reputation, and the longer we will have an ineffective president.
Goose, to answer a previous question of yours, the results were never replicated. MTL's lab a couple years later published other papers that showed a different mechanism of action.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - jonnyss - 03-08-2023
goose, regarding going on the record, as i understand the daily, theo baker is trying to raise awareness that the stanford board is doing only a superficial investigation. i believe he is saying that the board has had the info - in some cases for several months - to interview some or all of baker's sources but has thus far neglected to reach out.
seems reasonable to me that the next step in credibility is for the board to interview those sources rather than for the sources to speak publicly.
also, some of the complaints now have to do with mtl's response, which is current, public, quite visible - and, apparently, to some faculty, in several ways not the dignified response of a university president.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - Goose - 03-08-2023
(03-08-2023, 11:46 AM)jonnyss Wrote: goose, regarding going on the record, as i understand the daily, theo baker is trying to raise awareness that the stanford board is doing only a superficial investigation. i believe he is saying that the board has had the info - in some cases for several months - to interview some or all of baker's sources but has thus far neglected to reach out.If the board knows who these people are and does not talk to them it is indeed a whitewash. That shouldn't happen, obviously. However, IMO it won't help much if all the board can say is "Unnamed sources told us that...". The information has to be for attribution. Otherwise, it could be people who were never in a position to "know" and are just making it up.
seems reasonable to me that the next step in credibility is for the board to interview those sources rather than for the sources to speak publicly.
Quote:also, some of the complaints now have to do with mtl's response, which is current, public, quite visible - and, apparently, to some faculty, in several ways not the dignified response of a university president.MTL has, in fairness, the problem that he doesn't know who is saying what about events, and he can't reasonably refute what he doesn't know. It is almost impossible for him to be "dignified" when the accusations are as serious as these accusations are. MTL is undoubtedly "gone" no matter how this turns out. He is damaged goods at this point. Unfortunately for him, he did not aggressively defend himself at the start, which always leaves the impression of some kind of guilt. I would really like the accusations of knowingly refusing to retract falsified data to be investigated and the evidence made public, whatever it is (or isn't). It would be a real disservice to the scientific community if this cloud remained without resolution
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 03-09-2023
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/theo-baker-stanford-marc-tessier-lavigne-investigation
Interesting article about Theo Baker, the Daily reporter who has been breaking these stories. Didn't realize he was a frosh or who his parents were.
Quote:The youngest-ever recipient of one of the most prestigious awards in journalism still isn’t sure whether he wants to be a reporter when he graduates from college in three years. He hasn’t even decided on his major yet. “I take a lot of different courses in computer science, but also English, history, and philosophy,” said Theo Baker, an 18-year-old first-year Stanford University student from Washington, DC. “So I’m a little torn. I’m very bad at making up my mind.”
If Baker, currently the investigations editor for the independent student-run Stanford Daily newspaper, does go into journalism, he’d be following in his parents’ distinguished footsteps: His father is New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, and his mother is New Yorker staff writer Susan Glasser. (And yes, he’s heard the “nepo baby” talk.)
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - BostonCard - 03-09-2023
I highly doubt that the Stanford Daily gives a crap who his parents are, and certainly his investigation has generated buzz because of the target, not because of the byline. Except in the most general sense of the term, the "nepo baby" talk is silly.
BC
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - martyup - 03-09-2023
(03-09-2023, 12:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I highly doubt that the Stanford Daily gives a crap who his parents are, and certainly his investigation has generated buzz because of the target, not because of the byline. Except in the most general sense of the term, the "nepo baby" talk is silly.
BC
Do you doubt that his parentage had anything to do with his winning the award?
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 03-09-2023
Sounds like you have some insider knowledge regarding the selection for the Polk Award.
Care to share? Or is this just baseless speculation with no evidence at all?
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - BostonCard - 03-09-2023
To be clear, he did not win the main awards (eg Foreign or National reporting), he won a "special award" that in the past has gone to this sort of investigative reporting.
BC
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 03-09-2023
I'm still waiting on martyup's evidence that Theo won the award because of his parents and not because of his outstanding investigatory reporting.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - GoodGrief - 03-09-2023
This level of investigative reporting is amazing, and deserves the award regardless of whom his parents are.
(03-09-2023, 03:24 PM)martyup Wrote: Do you doubt that his parentage had anything to do with his winning the award?
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - martyup - 03-09-2023
(03-09-2023, 04:57 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I'm still waiting on martyup's evidence that Theo won the award because of his parents and not because of his outstanding investigatory reporting.
Why? I never said that he won the award because of his parentage. I also did not say that he didn't deserve the award. Let me ask you, dabigv13, do you doubt that his parentage had anything to do with his winning the award?
When asking this question, it was my hope that someone with knowledge of this particular award (or journalism awards in general) could weigh-in on the process of identifying candidates up for consideration. Do the publications routinely submit written works to the award organizations or do the authors themselves submit? What about friends or family?
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - 82lsju - 03-09-2023
(03-09-2023, 04:18 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To be clear, he did not win the main awards (eg Foreign or National reporting), he won a "special award" that in the past has gone to this sort of investigative reporting.
BC
the list of all the Polk award winner is here
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/long-island-university-announces-2022-george-polk-awards-in-journalism-301750296.html#:~:text=The%20George%20Polk%20Awards%20were,covering%20the%20Greek%20civil%20war.
his award mention
Quote:[b]Theo Baker[/b] of [b]The Stanford Daily[/b] has received a [b]Special Award[/b] for uncovering allegations that pioneering research co-authored by Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, a renowned neuroscientist, was supported in part by manipulated imagery and that Tessier-Lavigne and his associates failed to avail themselves of opportunities to correct the record. Baker's reporting spurred the university to engage an outside counsel who has assembled a panel of experts to investigate the allegations.
some recent special award winner
2020
Quote:Special Award: Regina Martinez of Proceso (posthumously) and Forbidden Stories, a global network of investigative journalists, for “The Cartel Project”.
2019
Quote:Special Award: Nikole Hannah-Jones of The New York Times and contributors for the 1619 Project, examining the central role of slavery in U.S. history and its ongoing effects in contemporary society.
2018
Quote:Special Award: Columnist David Ignatius and editor Karen Attiah of The Washington Post for eloquence and resolve in demanding accountability in the wake of the gruesome murder of Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.
2017
Quote:Special Award: Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post, for revealing ties between the Trump campaign and Kremlin-connected Russians that gave rise to the investigation into possible collusion during the 2016 election.
https://liu.edu/polk-awards/past-winners
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - BostonCard - 03-20-2023
https://endpts.com/no-finding-of-research-misconduct-mit-ends-3-5-year-review-of-biotech-founder-professor-sasisekharan/
In case anyone was hoping that there would be a quick resolution to this investigation, bear in mind that MIT's investigation in this (very different) case took 3.5 years.
BC
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 04-06-2023
Genentech says they don't think anything fishy happened with the 2009 Nature paper, though they acknowledge not having access to all relevant data. They said as much before but apparently did some interviews and investigation that is the basis of this article.
However a different postdoc under MTL was let go in 2010 for scientific misconduct, regarding a paper that was submitted with MTL as coauthor, but then withdrawn. This is new, presumably more details will come with further reporting.
https://www.statnews.com/2023/04/06/genentech-marc-tessier-lavigne-stanford-misconduct-investigation/
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - burger - 04-06-2023
(04-06-2023, 01:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Genentech says they don't think anything fishy happened with the 2009 Nature paper, though they acknowledge not having access to all relevant data. They said as much before but apparently did some interviews and investigation that is the basis of this article.
However a different postdoc under MTL was let go in 2010 for scientific misconduct, regarding a paper that was submitted with MTL as coauthor, but then withdrawn. This is new, presumably more details will come with further reporting.
https://www.statnews.com/2023/04/06/genentech-marc-tessier-lavigne-stanford-misconduct-investigation/
I think I said this above somewhere: these investigations almost never turn up any dispositive evidence. To prove MTL guilty, you'd either need to find someone who knows what happened and is willing to tank their career (who's hiring the guy who ratted on their boss?), or you'd need a smoking gun like finding files on MTL's computer labelled "image before fraud" and "image after fraud." That never happens. To prove MTL not guilty is pretty much impossible.
Meanwhile, the stink of all this still hangs over the university and is not going away. The board of trustees does not need any more evidence to act. It's dereliction of duty to have let things go this far.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - TrumpCard - 04-06-2023
(04-06-2023, 01:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Genentech says they don't think anything fishy happened with the 2009 Nature paper, though they acknowledge not having access to all relevant data. They said as much before but apparently did some interviews and investigation that is the basis of this article.
However a different postdoc under MTL was let go in 2010 for scientific misconduct, regarding a paper that was submitted with MTL as coauthor, but then withdrawn. This is new, presumably more details will come with further reporting.
https://www.statnews.com/2023/04/06/genentech-marc-tessier-lavigne-stanford-misconduct-investigation/
Most likely this is a series of unfortunate events. MTL made perfectly reasonable hiring decisions, but it turned out that a number of his post docs committed fraud unbeknownst to him. (Eye roll)
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - M T - 04-06-2023
(04-06-2023, 01:13 PM)burger Wrote: I think I said this above somewhere: these investigations almost never turn up any dispositive evidence. To prove MTL guilty, you'd either need to find someone who knows what happened and is willing to tank their career (who's hiring the guy who ratted on their boss?), or you'd need a smoking gun like finding files on MTL's computer labelled "image before fraud" and "image after fraud." That never happens. To prove MTL not guilty is pretty much impossible.
Did you consider the possibility of evidence existing proving him innocent of fraud? Seems it's pretty hard to check in every dusty corner and under every bed and finally say, "Why I would have sworn he is guilty of fraud, but I can't find evidence anywhere. Well, he continues to be guilty because he wasn't proven innocent. That's my story and I'm sticking to it."
By the way, why is it that so many here cite reporters' opinions of original documents rather than going straight to the original? If you want to see the Genentech report, it is here. If you want derivative reporting of that report, the link was given above.
As I read the report, it clearly and specifically refutes the allegation in the title and second paragraph of the Feb. 17 Stanford Daily "Internal review found ‘falsified data’ in Stanford President’s Alzheimer’s research, colleagues allege".
The inclusion in the report of finding #4 (unrelated to the papers in question) suggests that the faculty member who reported hearsay evidence that is the subject of the March 7 Daily article may have been confusing a different incident which resulted in a paper being retracted and the termination of a postdoc.
If this all blows up in Theo Baker's face, I wonder if he'll find a career in investigative reporting.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 04-06-2023
What's with all the hostility to Baker on this thread? He's a Stanford student, and an award winning one.
I imagine he will probably be out soon with some new reporting on this OTHER MTL postdoc fabricating data.