[Goose]

sure, unnoticed by some busy scientists. but, if i understand the chronology, mtl had previously self-reported to a journal errors in images in one of his articles. i would certainly expect him to be vigilant for such errors in the future. that he was not seems quite problematic. to me, it looks like, when the first journal said, "don't worry about it," he felt emboldened either to allow falsification in the future or at least to look the other way.

IMO the conclusion that he felt any way at all about it is (as of yet) unsupported by evidence. My inclination is to say that in neither case did he know there were any "irregularities" in the images until this was noted by others. As of yet, I know of no evidence that he knew about it before the articles were published, but we may find out otherwise. Right now, the worst that can be charged is not being adequately diligent in ensuring the data integrity of an article on which he was the last author. My point is that virtually the same charge can be levied against almost all such last authors, and to the extent they have not signed off on data that was in some way "altered", it is mostly luck, not diligence.

elizabeth holmes also tried the "someone else was responsible for data integrity" strategy.

Totally and completely different cases. Elizabeth Holmes clearly knew that their data did not indicate their machines "worked". She actively tried to suppress that knowledge. She also profited handsomely for so doing. It also wasn't just a few figures that were "doctored". It was the entire operational concept of their product line that simply didn't work, which she unarguably knew.

[Goose]

sure, unnoticed by some busy scientists. but, if i understand the chronology, mtl had previously self-reported to a journal errors in images in one of his articles. i would certainly expect him to be vigilant for such errors in the future. that he was not seems quite problematic. to me, it looks like, when the first journal said, "don't worry about it," he felt emboldened either to allow falsification in the future or at least to look the other way.

IMO the conclusion that he felt any way at all about it is (as of yet) unsupported by evidence. My inclination is to say that in neither case did he know there were any "irregularities" in the images until this was noted by others. As of yet, I know of no evidence that he knew about it before the articles were published, but we may find out otherwise. Right now, the worst that can be charged is not being adequately diligent in ensuring the data integrity of an article on which he was the last author. My point is that virtually the same charge can be levied against almost all such last authors, and to the extent they have not signed off on data that was in some way "altered", it is mostly luck, not diligence.

elizabeth holmes also tried the "someone else was responsible for data integrity" strategy.

Totally and completely different cases. Elizabeth Holmes clearly knew that their data did not indicate their machines "worked". She actively tried to suppress that knowledge. She also profited handsomely for so doing. It also wasn't just a few figures that were "doctored". It was the entire operational concept of their product line that simply didn't work, which she unarguably knew.