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: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - cardcrimson - 11-29-2022
Manipulating a few images of blots? No big deal. It's not like he billed the government for research expenses like a wedding reception, widening his bed, fancy sheets, or for the purchase of antiques for his home, including a 19th century fruitwood commode.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - dabigv13 - 11-29-2022
Huh???
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - BostonCard - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 04:46 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Huh???
I think he is referring to this: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/history-of-education-quarterly/article/abs/technically-allowed-federal-scrutiny-of-stanford-universitys-indirect-cost-expenditures-and-the-changing-context-for-research-universities-in-the-postcold-war-era/A7851438C78CC493DD612137AD7A3446#access-block
(the article may be behind a paywall, but from the abstract):
Quote:Stanford University's indirect cost rates for federally sponsored research dramatically increased from 58 percent in 1980 to 78 percent in 1991. Faculty frustration with increasing rates and scrutiny from a zealous government contracting officer culminated in a congressional inquiry into Stanford's indirect cost accounting practices in 1990 and 1991. The investigation revealed controversial luxury expenses charged to the government, including a yacht and antiques for the Stanford president's home, which attracted extensive public attention. Stanford president Donald Kennedy admitted some expenses were accounting errors but defended many expenses as permissible under government rules. Stanford's aggressive overhead recovery practices represent the institution's struggle to adapt to a changing economy for sponsored research in the twilight of the Cold War. The congressional response, which included a cap on administrative cost recovery for all universities, highlighted how shifting federal priorities—from defense research to deficit reduction—strained the relationship between the federal government and academic science.
Donald Kennedy resigned due to the scandal.
BC
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - cardcrimson - 11-29-2022
How soon we forget. The office of the President has had controversy before . . . .
"According to Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), who held congressional hearings on Stanford's billing practices, the university charged the government for the costs of operating a 72-foot yacht, a $4,000 wedding reception at the president's house, a 19th-century fruitwood commode, enlargement of the president's bed, $7,000 for sheets, two Voltaire chairs at a price of $1,500, and $400 for flowers for a dedication of the school's stables."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/07/30/stanford-chief-quits-over-billings-flap/defc068b-9712-4224-acd3-ea8248706a6e/
And from Wikipedia:
"Kennedy resigned in 1992 following congressional hearings over whether the university improperly billed the government for research expense as part of the Stanford Indirect Costs Controversy,[23][24][25] which included billing for widening his bed and for the purchase of antiques for his home."
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - M T - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 02:50 PM)81alum Wrote:(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
BC didn't say he was the lead author on those 2 papers. BC said he was the senior author. The lead author was his post-doc.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - jacket3ree - 11-29-2022
Someone should do a band show about it.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - BostonCard - 11-29-2022
(11-29-2022, 07:41 PM)M T Wrote:(11-29-2022, 02:50 PM)81alum Wrote:(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
BC didn't say he was the lead author on those 2 papers. BC said he was the senior author. The lead author was his post-doc.
By convention in biomedical research, the senior author is listed last; they are typically the professor (in an academic setting) that supervised the more junior person (usually a graduate student or post-doctoral scholar) who actually carried out the experiments and did most of the authoring for the paper (who is typically listed first). Being the first or last author on a paper is generally a big deal, and the expectation is that those authors are accountable for the work. In theory, everyone who puts their name on a paper is basically saying they stand by the work, it would be hard to be completely double checking the accuracy of everything if you are a middle author. But the first and last authors absolutely need to.
BC
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - martyup - 11-29-2022
I just want to know if removing MTL will help the football program. If yes, fire his cheating ass! If no, meh.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - 82lsju - 11-30-2022
Quote:Stanford has opened its own investigation into President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s research after a piece unveiling 7 years of scientific misconduct allegations was published by The Daily on Tuesday morning. The Daily outlined four papers with Tessier-Lavigne credited as an author which, according to research misconduct expert Elisabeth Bik, contain “serious issues.” The issues were corroborated by two other researchers.
According to spokesperson Dee Mostofi, the University will “assess the allegations presented in the Stanford Daily, consistent with its normal rigorous approach by which allegations of research misconduct are reviewed and investigated.” The investigation will be overseen by the Board of Trustees.
In addition to the four papers The Daily previously reported on, The University’s investigation may include a fifth paper Tessier-Lavigne co-authored in 1999 in the journal Cell.
This paper, which was not mentioned in The Daily’s questions, was included in the University’s statement last night. According to the University, the paper contained errors which were brought to Tessier-Lavigne’s attention at the same time as the two Science articles described in detail in the initial Daily piece.
Mostofi wrote that Tessier-Lavigne reported the errors to Cell but its “editorial team concluded that ‘we do not see it as necessary or appropriate to publish a Correction and we consider the matter closed.’”
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/30/stanford-opens-investigation-of-president-tessier-lavigne-following-daily-article-on-allegations-of-scientific-misconduct/?utm_content=Nov-30-2022%3Futm_campaign%3Ddigest&utm_content=Nov-30-2022
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - 82lsju - 12-02-2022
statement from BoT chair Jerry Yang
https://news.stanford.edu/report/2022/12/02/statement-stanford-board-chair-jerry-yang/?utm_campaign=890afdbcc0-ext_COPY_01&utm_term=0_c042b4aad7-890afdbcc0-55254950
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - Bruce Wang - 12-02-2022
(11-29-2022, 09:19 PM)martyup Wrote: I just want to know if removing MTL will help the football program. If yes, fire his cheating ass! If no, meh.
Well we went to the Rose Bowl in 2016, and then MTL took over. Maybe the wrong guy resigned...
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - BostonCard - 12-02-2022
Science:
https://www.science.org/content/article/stanford-investigates-potential-misconduct-president-s-research
Apparently, corrections to some of the papers were submitted a while back:
Quote:Holden Thorp, editor-in-chief of the Science family of journals, said Tessier-Lavigne submitted corrections to both Science papers in October 2015, but “due to an error” Science never posted them. “We regret this error, apologize to the scientific community, and will be sharing our next steps as they relate to these two papers as soon as possible,” Thorp said in a statement.
I think it would be somewhat reassuring if corrections had been submitted before the scandal broke. Still not a good look, but it does make the case that this was more unintential/sloppiness than intentional academic fraud.
BC
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - fullmetal - 12-02-2022
I don't know how "corrections" makes up for "there was deliberately falsified data."
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - dabigv13 - 12-02-2022
Yeah, and the corrections were still after several years right?
What is striking is how many papers he was on where this occurred. I wonder what the percentage of papers in the journals involved have had altered images over those time periods. Perhaps some random sampling could give a rough estimate, will have to read more on this.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - washingtonismoney - 12-02-2022
(12-02-2022, 07:47 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Yeah, and the corrections were still after several years right?
What is striking is how many papers he was on where this occurred. I wonder what the percentage of papers in the journals involved have had altered images over those time periods. Perhaps some random sampling could give a rough estimate, will have to read more on this.
I don't know if there's any formal estimates -- though Stanford's John Ionnadis (recently a more controversial figure, for, uh, reasons) has claimed half of all research findings are false. (for various reasons). But MTL's alleged misdeed fits right in with major tensions in the scientific community. There's now major scrutiny over the existing scientific record: there seems to be a lot of outright fraud or major hijinks; less egregious, but more problematic, is some of the corner-cutting that results in sexed-up findings making it into the record -- and causing other researchers to waste time and money trying to, say, develop drugs based on research results. So this is serious stuff.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - BostonCard - 12-02-2022
The denominator is brobdingnagian, though. He's an author on 280 papers (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=tessier-levigne%5BAuthor%5D&sort=) unless there are other Tessier-Levigne's out there.
I think you have to let the investigation play out. The people who know this field (fraudulent image manipulation) are not immediately fingering this as a clear-cut problem.
Quote:But Vanderbilt University physician and neuroscientist Matthew Schrag, who recently uncovered image manipulation in a raft of key papers on Alzheimer’s disease, suggested to the Daily that the concerns “do not appear to represent a systematic issue throughout Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s extensive and influential body of work.”
However, a more detailed examination of the 280 papers (or at least the 106 in which he is a first or last author) may uncover more image manipulation and evidence of fraud, so it is too early to either absolve him or condemn him. But fraudsters don't just stop after a couple.
BC
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - 82lsju - 12-02-2022
more from the Daily
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/12/02/additional-papers-by-university-president-in-question-structure-of-boards-investigation-criticized/?utm_content=Dec-02-2022%3Futm_campaign%3Ddigest&utm_content=Dec-02-2022
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - BostonCard - 12-02-2022
Agree that the committee looks to be inadequate for the task.
BC
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - dabigv13 - 12-02-2022
Excellent article from the NYT a month back from Elizabeth Bik, the image manipulation expert involved. I didn't realize she used to work at Stanford.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/29/opinion/science-fraud-image-manipulation-photoshop.html
The article is well done with good graphics and really lays out the stakes. The discussion at the end about the danger of AI to create fake data that may be undetectable as false is a frightening one.
I hope the committee consults some good outside consultants and is thorough. Carol Lam seems like a competent choice to lead it with her background, but the whole committee seems to close to MTL.
But the real way to clear your name would be if other labs can replicate the results.
RE: MTL research under investigation for scientific misconduct, University admits ‘mistak - 81alum - 12-03-2022
(12-02-2022, 09:16 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: Excellent article from the NYT a month back from Elizabeth Bik, the image manipulation expert involved. I didn't realize she used to work at Stanford.What a superb piece that I missed when it came out. Yes, anyone interested in the MTL ethics issue would benefit by reading this.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/10/29/opinion/science-fraud-image-manipulation-photoshop.html
The article is well done with good graphics and really lays out the stakes. The discussion at the end about the danger of AI to create fake data that may be undetectable as false is a frightening one.
I hope the committee consults some good outside consultants and is thorough. Carol Lam seems like a competent choice to lead it with her background, but the whole committee seems to close to MTL.
But the real way to clear your name would be if other labs can replicate the results.