[BostonCard]

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...ce.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.

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

[BostonCard]

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...ce.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.

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