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 - BostonCard - 04-06-2023
A few thoughts:
1) A large thrust of the Daily's reporting has been refuted, and I think MT is right that, 15 years after the fact, the person who the Daily talked to most likely conflated two different things: A paper in Nature that couldn't be consistently reproduced and that, later, when animal models were eventually developed, was shown to have been wrong and a different paper, that was submitted and later withdrawn when misconduct was found.
2) If we take MTL's word in the STAT article at face value, that he was the one that initiated the process to investigate the paper which led to its withdrawal, then that seems like it would support the theory that he is not the one instigating fraud, and that other cases were instances of inadequate oversight on his part (which happens). Yeah, in an ideal world, he catches things during internal review and not after a paper is submitted, but sometimes you don't spot something until after the fact.
3) MTL is not completely absolved; the review did find that there were duplicate images in the 2009 Nature paper and that there is a composite image. It will be interesting to see what Nature does about it now that they have been formally reported to the Journal. I don't know enough about neuroscience to know if the duplications are critical to the central thrust of the article, or if they are ancillary; most of the images are part of the supplementary figures and not the main text. It is also impossible to know intent: was it sloppiness, an attempt to show something more clearly, or an attempt to hide something.
4) Nor is everything that the Stanford Daily reported false. Evidently someone at Genentech had suggested retracting or correcting the paper, though it was due to inconsistent replication both within and outside Genentech not due to a finding of fraud. It is reasonable for different people to disagree about whether that should be grounds for retraction, but if every article that was ever published was withdrawn because of imperfect replication, as many as 90% of articles would have to be withdrawn:
Quote:A 2011 analysis by researchers with pharmaceutical company Bayer found that, at most, a quarter of Bayer's in-house findings replicated the original results.[45] But the analysis of Bayer's results found that the results that did replicate could often be successfully used for clinical applications.[46]
In a 2012 paper, C. Glenn Begley, a biotech consultant working at Amgen, and Lee Ellis, a medical researcher at the University of Texas, found that only 11% of 53 pre-clinical cancer studies had replications that could confirm conclusions from the original studies.[47] In late 2021, The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology examined 53 top papers about cancer published between 2010 and 2012 and showed that among studies that provided sufficient information to be redone, the effect sizes were 85% smaller on average than the original findings.[48][49] A survey of cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result.[50]
5) Lastly, and I can vouch for this since I work at the company, "The RRC is not, and never has been, an investigative body." The name sounds a bit ominous, but it isn't; it is just a committee to review the science. https://money.cnn.com/2006/01/06/news/companies/bestcos_genentech/index.htm
Quote:The rigor is designed to vet the science, uncover the flaws, avoid the dead ends, and sift out politics and favoritism, so that in the end Levinson and Desmond-Hellmann have enough information to place the right bets on the research that will most likely lead to an actual drug. Sometimes scientists fail, or the work isn't deemed sufficiently high priority, and the RRC puts an end to a project. In those cases, not only are the researchers not fired; they usually have a say in their next assignment.
6) I agree that the hostility to Baker is uncalled for. He is a student-journalist learning the business. Even if some of his reporting winds up being refuted, is it any different than the most benign thing related to MTL (namely, that he was sloppy and some of what he published turned out to be wrong). And, while the totality of the Genentech report pushes me away from the worst allegation towards MTL (that he committed fraud), it doesn't entirely absolve him either. There was "smoke" in MTL's work on DR6 at Genentech, so even if the eventual outcome is not as salacious as Baker made it out to be, it is a story.
7) I will nonetheless be interested to see if the Daily publishes an article based on the Genentech report. They should; if it is newsworthy enough for STAT news to publish, the Daily should as well.
BC
DISCLAIMER: I work at Genentech. I am only opining on the publicly disclosed materials. I don't know anyone involved, but I do know the structures and institutions (eg, the RRC).
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 04-06-2023
https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/06/stanford-president-research-misconduct-concerns-genentech/
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - BostonCard - 04-06-2023
Quote:But at least one person interviewed by Genentech in connection with its review told the company that the research had been falsified, the person told The Daily. This high-level executive requested anonymity due to fear of retribution. Genentech did not immediately respond to a question about why this allegation was not included in the readout.
Reconciling this will be important.
I think much of the rest of the Daily Article mischaracterizes Genentech’s report, in my mind. My read of it is that the most explosive allegations were refuted. That being said, how one reads the Genentech report could be colored by the above statement. One thing that doesn’t totally add up is that a high level executive, who apparently told the investigation about alleged fraud, is nonetheless worried about retribution. If they were worried about retribution, why tell the company about the allegations?
BC
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 04-07-2023
I haven't had time to read the Genentech report yet, but as a general point I'm not sure why it should be assumed to be anything closer to the truth of what happened than the prior reporting. Genentech is a private company with their own set of concerns, that has no public duty to determine the truth if this matter and publicize it. They acknowledge themselves they have incomplete data. The primary entity Genentech is looking out for in a company report that it makes public is Genentech.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - cardcrimson - 04-07-2023
I'm perplexed. Wasn't MTL working for Genentech when the allegedly false/manipulated research papers published? Genentech's own investigation shows no fraud in the research. Sure, that's reliable. Here's a great quote:
"Here’s the top-line positive finding for the accused: “None of the current or former employees who were interviewed reported observing or knowing of any fraud, fabrication, or other intentional wrongdoing in the research leading to and reported in the 2009 Nature paper.” Genentech was also unable to find any evidence that its Research Review Committee investigated fraud, fabrication or misconduct related to the work at the time, as was claimed in the original article."
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/genentech-probe-tessier-lavigne-paper-finds-no-fraud-evidence-image-anomalies-stay
Do you think a single person involved is going to admit "yeah, we faked it". Good grief. Love that the third party analyzing the research found "anomalies", yet Genentech clears itself.
As for award winning journalism blowing up in one's face? I wish I could comment on that. . . .
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - 82lsju - 05-01-2023
Update from the "Special Committee" investigating the work done by and with Marc Tessier-Lavigne
TD:DR - they've been working really hard and they believe they will be "substantially complete" by mid-July 2023.
Anyone else not surprised that they plan to finish over summer break?
Quote:"Because reviews of scientific and academic conduct are typically very lengthy, the Special Committee of the Board did not set an arbitrary deadline for the Scientific Panel to conclude its important work. However, given the resources devoted to this matter and the Scientific Panel’s progress to date, the Special Committee of the Board believes the Scientific Panel’s work will be substantially complete by mid-July of this year. Kirkland & Ellis will then share the results of its review and the Scientific Panel’s evaluation with the Special Committee of the Board and Stanford’s Board of Trustees, which will ultimately be responsible for communicating with the broader Stanford community."
https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/special-committee/#2023-04-30
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - Mick - 05-01-2023
(05-01-2023, 07:20 AM)82lsju Wrote: Update from the "Special Committee" investigating the work done by and with Marc Tessier-Lavigne
TD:DR - they've been working really hard and they believe they will be "substantially complete" by mid-July 2023.
Anyone else not surprised that they plan to finish over summer break?
Quote:"Because reviews of scientific and academic conduct are typically very lengthy, the Special Committee of the Board did not set an arbitrary deadline for the Scientific Panel to conclude its important work. However, given the resources devoted to this matter and the Scientific Panel’s progress to date, the Special Committee of the Board believes the Scientific Panel’s work will be substantially complete by mid-July of this year. Kirkland & Ellis will then share the results of its review and the Scientific Panel’s evaluation with the Special Committee of the Board and Stanford’s Board of Trustees, which will ultimately be responsible for communicating with the broader Stanford community."
https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/special-committee/#2023-04-30
My guess is a terse press release late on Friday afternoon, July 21 or July 28, and the contact person will be on vacation for a week afterward.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - burger - 05-01-2023
(05-01-2023, 07:24 AM)Mick Wrote:(05-01-2023, 07:20 AM)82lsju Wrote: Update from the "Special Committee" investigating the work done by and with Marc Tessier-Lavigne
TD:DR - they've been working really hard and they believe they will be "substantially complete" by mid-July 2023.
Anyone else not surprised that they plan to finish over summer break?
Quote:"Because reviews of scientific and academic conduct are typically very lengthy, the Special Committee of the Board did not set an arbitrary deadline for the Scientific Panel to conclude its important work. However, given the resources devoted to this matter and the Scientific Panel’s progress to date, the Special Committee of the Board believes the Scientific Panel’s work will be substantially complete by mid-July of this year. Kirkland & Ellis will then share the results of its review and the Scientific Panel’s evaluation with the Special Committee of the Board and Stanford’s Board of Trustees, which will ultimately be responsible for communicating with the broader Stanford community."
https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/special-committee/#2023-04-30
My guess is a terse press release late on Friday afternoon, July 21 or July 28, and the contact person will be on vacation for a week afterward.
And the press release will say "despite some maybe questionable images, we found no direct evidence of misconduct by MTL. Case closed."
Like I said above, to prove fraud, they'd need to find files on MTL's personal computer labeled "image_before_fraud.jpg" and "image_after_fraud.jpg." That's not happening. This whole thing is just to give cover to the board for not firing MTL already.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - M T - 05-01-2023
It feels like a mob mentality around here of ignoring the evidence and going on what you want to be true.
How many here actually have investigated beyond reading what's been posted here or in the newspapers? ["you" designates the reader (as in "how many here"), not a reference to any specific poster] Would you want someone passing judgement on your career with as little investigation as you've done? Did you read the PubPeer posts? After the Daily reporter reported anonymous claims about events at Genentech, did you read the result of Genentech's investigation?
Do you know whose work is expected to be substantially completed by mid-July? Do you know who is on the Special Panel? Are you even going to read their findings?
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - needle - 05-01-2023
MT, I appreciate your sense of fairness, but it is truly unreasonable to expect commenters on a (putatively sports) message board to pore over primary sources before opining about a public figure (who is an unpopular one, at that).
I do think the BOT did the right thing in paying a law firm to investigate, but the probable fatal flaw in this plan is that the firm is left to invent an investigative procedure.
Others surely know better than I, but I would think a typical investigation into research misconduct would not rely on this sort of all-star panel approach. Truly, it is the institution where the research took place that would have access to any sort of contemporaneous records that might serve as proof, one way or another, or at least help guide questioning of those involved in producing the research. Without this access, the special panel is left to parse MTL’s version of how and why his papers are flawed. It’s something, and I think we all will read the special panel’s findings (assuming they are made public). But I am not hopeful that any inarguable conclusions will be reached.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - 82lsju - 05-01-2023
(05-01-2023, 02:50 PM)M T Wrote: Do you know whose work is expected to be substantially completed by mid-July? Do you know who is on the Special Panel? Are you even going to read their findings?
Quote:The special committee will be chaired by Trustee Carol Lam, who also serves as chair of the board’s Committee on Audit, Compliance, and Risk. I [Jerry Yang] will also serve as a member of this committee, along with trustees Felix Baker, James Coulter, and Jeffrey Stone.
...
Special Committee retained former federal judge Mark Filip and the law firm Kirkland & Ellis to lead the review, and Mr. Filip engaged a panel of leading scientific experts to conduct a thorough and impartial evaluation of the facts and scientific issues that it determines are relevant.
...
The Special Committee of the Board is deeply grateful to the panelists — Hollis Cline, Ph.D.; Kafui Dzirasa, M.D., Ph.D.; Steven E. Hyman, M.D.; Randy Schekman, Ph.D., and Shirley M. Tilghman, Ph.D. — for their close attention and unflagging focus to this matter, on top of their own extensive commitments.
...
To date, Kirkland & Ellis and the Scientific Panel have reviewed more than 26,000 collected documents, including scientific papers and lab data, correspondence, media articles, PubPeer posts, and various other materials, with the assistance of experts in image forensics where needed. Their review has also required hundreds of hours of meetings and witness interviews.
will be interesting to how much of their findings and the 26,000 documents and interview transcripts they make available in July, 2023.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 05-01-2023
Undisputed that MTL coauthored several papers with fabricated data. It's possible, even likely that this was more due to failure to mentor/supervise versus MTL fabricating the data themselves.
But it's not "mob mentality" to want your university president to be above reproach. There are many people who could do the job just fine, he is not owed anything by Stanford or Stanford alums.
He frankly could be fired for performance irrespective of this issue. Stanford has been stepping on rakes for the last couple years. Buck stops somewhere right?
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - Goose - 05-01-2023
(05-01-2023, 04:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford has been stepping on rakes for the last couple years. Buck stops somewhere right?Maybe, but not generally on the President. Do any of us really know exactly what the President of the University is supposed to do? I have been around for quite a few of them, and their actions, "results", and influences have been almost uniformly different. My experience has been that some Presidents were in general well liked and well respected and others were not, usually for reasons that few could articulate. It was a "feeling". MTL has never provided that "feeling" that he was any good. To me, that is probably his greatest sin, and that is more likely to get him forced out than anything else, IMO. I have seen Presidents do what I thought were silly things. I have seen Presidents do basically nothing, ever. They served until either they didn't want to any more or the BOT got tired of them. One could ask for "accountability", but accountability for exactly what?
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - dabigv13 - 05-01-2023
What a job. High pay (at least a million/year), low accountability, apparently impossible to be fired, and I bet he could get great seats at Stanford games if he went.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - 82lsju - 05-01-2023
(05-01-2023, 04:55 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: What a job. High pay (at least a million/year), low accountability, apparently impossible to be fired, and I bet he could get great seats at Stanford games if he went.
according to the 2021 form 990 (filed in July 2022)
https://bondholder-information.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj21416/files/media/file/stanford_fy21_form_990.pdf
he made almost $1.6m in CY2020
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - burger - 05-01-2023
(05-01-2023, 04:55 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: What a job. High pay (at least a million/year), low accountability, apparently impossible to be fired, and I bet he could get great seats at Stanford games if he went.
Wait, are we talking about MTL or Jerod Haase?
(Or maybe Bernard Muir?)
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - TonyLima - 05-02-2023
(05-01-2023, 04:33 PM)Goose Wrote:(05-01-2023, 04:02 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Stanford has been stepping on rakes for the last couple years. Buck stops somewhere right?Maybe, but not generally on the President. Do any of us really know exactly what the President of the University is supposed to do? I have been around for quite a few of them, and their actions, "results", and influences have been almost uniformly different. My experience has been that some Presidents were in general well liked and well respected and others were not, usually for reasons that few could articulate. It was a "feeling". MTL has never provided that "feeling" that he was any good. To me, that is probably his greatest sin, and that is more likely to get him forced out than anything else, IMO. I have seen Presidents do what I thought were silly things. I have seen Presidents do basically nothing, ever. They served until either they didn't want to any more or the BOT got tired of them. One could ask for "accountability", but accountability for exactly what?
Hennessey (sp) was pretty good.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - Goose - 05-02-2023
(05-02-2023, 09:41 AM)TonyLima Wrote: Hennessey (sp) was pretty good.I think lots of people would agree with you. He ran the University in a manner that corresponded to his goals, basically like a business. I think he was effective and respected. However, I totally disagree with his emphasis. He fostered/assisted in creating a University that is much more bureaucratic than he found it. This bureaucracy consumes lots of money but in many cases produces no educational value added and in quite a few cases actually gets in the way. It does provide a vehicle for many empires to be built however.
He also fostered a physical plant that I think is in many ways very overbuilt yet does not serve the needs of the students. Although he is an engineer, I think the engineering faculty is a mere shadow of what it was in former times. We could undoubtedly have a discussion about his tenure, but as you may gather I am not at all happy with his results. He was in many ways effective, and that is the problem :-)
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - GK3 - 05-02-2023
(05-02-2023, 11:00 AM)Goose Wrote:(05-02-2023, 09:41 AM)TonyLima Wrote: Hennessey (sp) was pretty good.I think lots of people would agree with you. He ran the University in a manner that corresponded to his goals, basically like a business. I think he was effective and respected. However, I totally disagree with his emphasis. He fostered/assisted in creating a University that is much more bureaucratic than he found it. This bureaucracy consumes lots of money but in many cases produces no educational value added and in quite a few cases actually gets in the way. It does provide a vehicle for many empires to be built however.
He also fostered a physical plant that I think is in many ways very overbuilt yet does not serve the needs of the students. Although he is an engineer, I think the engineering faculty is a mere shadow of what it was in former times. We could undoubtedly have a discussion about his tenure, but as you may gather I am not at all happy with his results. He was in many ways effective, and that is the problem :-)
Since I graduated, long ago, I have had few opportunities and not a lot of interest in meeting the then President's of the University. My father and Wally Sterling were graduate students together at Stanford in the early 1930's. When I showed up on campus I was invited along with many of my fellow Frosh to a reception at Sterling's residence. The man turned Stanford from a regional school in need of money to a school with a national reputation. We may well have had Presidents as good as Wally Sterling, but I am not sure we have had any better.
.
RE: Tessier-Lavigne research under investigation for scientific misconduct - Goose - 05-02-2023
(05-02-2023, 05:53 PM)GK3 Wrote:He was president when I attended as well. He was effective in many ways, and a great deal was accomplished on his watch. He was able to build a world class University, attract a faculty to match, and increase the number of students who received financial aid massively. He also helped create the Stanford Industrial Park which obviously played a big part in making "Silicon Valley" exist. Most impressively in my book, he did it without creating a soulless monolith in the process. He did have some issues right at the end, as he was just not prepared to deal with the student unrest that broke out on campus. Then again, nobody really was and he was already on his way out when things got bad. There are a few other things, he wasn't perfect, but IMO he was indeed a great president.(05-02-2023, 11:00 AM)Goose Wrote:(05-02-2023, 09:41 AM)TonyLima Wrote: Hennessey (sp) was pretty good.I think lots of people would agree with you. He ran the University in a manner that corresponded to his goals, basically like a business. I think he was effective and respected. However, I totally disagree with his emphasis. He fostered/assisted in creating a University that is much more bureaucratic than he found it. This bureaucracy consumes lots of money but in many cases produces no educational value added and in quite a few cases actually gets in the way. It does provide a vehicle for many empires to be built however.
He also fostered a physical plant that I think is in many ways very overbuilt yet does not serve the needs of the students. Although he is an engineer, I think the engineering faculty is a mere shadow of what it was in former times. We could undoubtedly have a discussion about his tenure, but as you may gather I am not at all happy with his results. He was in many ways effective, and that is the problem :-)
Since I graduated, long ago, I have had few opportunities and not a lot of interest in meeting the then President's of the University. My father and Wally Sterling were graduate students together at Stanford in the early 1930's. When I showed up on campus I was invited along with many of my fellow Frosh to a reception at Sterling's residence. The man turned Stanford from a regional school in need of money to a school with a national reputation. We may well have had Presidents as good as Wally Sterling, but I am not sure we have had any better.
.