[Goose]

I'm no scientist and I don't have familiarity with the subject or contents of these papers.  My layman question is did the altered images give a false conclusion to the science?  In other words, if the images would not have been altered would the conclusions be the same?

In at least one case, yes. 

It's fine for MTL to continue to be a researcher and professor going forward even if he a) photoshopped b) told someone else to photoshop or c) didn't notice when other people photoshopped, several times. But not to be president of Stanford. He has to be a leader and a leader sets an example.

It would not be difficult for Stanford to find another excellent academician to be president whose name is not on falsified papers, who would do a fine job of being president. MTL is not irreplaceable.

I agree with your conclusion that MTL is not irreplaceable. In fact, I think that there are good reasons to question his leadership. That said, I most emphatically do not agree that it would be acceptable for him to remain a professor going forward if he photoshopped data or suggested that somebody else photoshop data. Those would be intentional breaches of ethics for which he would be responsible. Those things can and should get you dismissed with prejudice from the faculty.

Your characterization of "not noticing" that something was photoshopped is IMHO misleading. It is not as if MTL had seen the "real" data, the data in the paper was "different", and he should have detected that difference. As far as we know, the only thing he ever saw was the "tainted" data. I find it difficult to actually fault him much if that were the case. I do understand the argument that the President of the University must be above reproach, and I could even understand the argument that the President, much as the captain of a ship, can be dismissed for misdeeds that he could not have reasonably prevented. I just can't consider him morally responsible for such a situation.

[Goose]

I'm no scientist and I don't have familiarity with the subject or contents of these papers.  My layman question is did the altered images give a false conclusion to the science?  In other words, if the images would not have been altered would the conclusions be the same?

In at least one case, yes. 

It's fine for MTL to continue to be a researcher and professor going forward even if he a) photoshopped b) told someone else to photoshop or c) didn't notice when other people photoshopped, several times. But not to be president of Stanford. He has to be a leader and a leader sets an example.

It would not be difficult for Stanford to find another excellent academician to be president whose name is not on falsified papers, who would do a fine job of being president. MTL is not irreplaceable.

I agree with your conclusion that MTL is not irreplaceable. In fact, I think that there are good reasons to question his leadership. That said, I most emphatically do not agree that it would be acceptable for him to remain a professor going forward if he photoshopped data or suggested that somebody else photoshop data. Those would be intentional breaches of ethics for which he would be responsible. Those things can and should get you dismissed with prejudice from the faculty.

Your characterization of "not noticing" that something was photoshopped is IMHO misleading. It is not as if MTL had seen the "real" data, the data in the paper was "different", and he should have detected that difference. As far as we know, the only thing he ever saw was the "tainted" data. I find it difficult to actually fault him much if that were the case. I do understand the argument that the President of the University must be above reproach, and I could even understand the argument that the President, much as the captain of a ship, can be dismissed for misdeeds that he could not have reasonably prevented. I just can't consider him morally responsible for such a situation.