[82lsju]

I would go back to Bik's comments in the original Daily:

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.

Bik and the other research misconduct experts who spoke on the condition of anonymity concurred that proving intentional malice from published papers is near impossible without the completion of a formal review. Ferric Fang, a prominent neurobiologist who has also served as the editor-in-chief of scientific journal Infection and Immunity, wrote in an email to The Daily that he agreed with Bik that several of the figures in the four papers “look problematic.”

“I am not saying that all of these image problems are innocent— just that it is not possible to…assign responsibility without a more formal inquiry and an examination of the primary data,” Fang wrote. “I cannot say more than that.”

If the experts in the field who have seen this many times are not willing to condemn MTL until the outputs of an investigation, then I don't think we should either.

BC

and I would feel much better about the investigation if it was being done by an independent organization and not the Stanford BoT who while they say they will use subject matter experts appear to not be well suited to execute this investigation.

[82lsju]

I would go back to Bik's comments in the original Daily:

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.

Bik and the other research misconduct experts who spoke on the condition of anonymity concurred that proving intentional malice from published papers is near impossible without the completion of a formal review. Ferric Fang, a prominent neurobiologist who has also served as the editor-in-chief of scientific journal Infection and Immunity, wrote in an email to The Daily that he agreed with Bik that several of the figures in the four papers “look problematic.”

“I am not saying that all of these image problems are innocent— just that it is not possible to…assign responsibility without a more formal inquiry and an examination of the primary data,” Fang wrote. “I cannot say more than that.”

If the experts in the field who have seen this many times are not willing to condemn MTL until the outputs of an investigation, then I don't think we should either.

BC

and I would feel much better about the investigation if it was being done by an independent organization and not the Stanford BoT who while they say they will use subject matter experts appear to not be well suited to execute this investigation.