[Goose]

So first off, the images were digitally altered, unclear if by MTL or an associate at this time. It was not something that just happened due to random chance or serendipity. So either MTL altered images, encouraged others to alter the images, or in the best light, did not notice that the images had been altered until someone else pointed it out.

Don't forget the fourth option. MTL never saw anything but the altered images. He may not have known they were altered until the program spotted the indications that a human would not see. FWIW, if I had a set of images that "needed" altering to make my point, I sure wouldn't show the unaltered ones to anybody first.

Also, while he did submit corrections after someone else noticed the problems, he did not submit any correction for the most problematic issue, a western blot in the Cell paper that had not been identified as altered until recently and that was an alteration that actually impacts the interpretation of the results, while the others could more generously be seen as making the pictures look nicer.

Again, they had not been identified as altered "until recently". It could have been news to him as much as it was to anybody else. I just don't see MTL, who was already well known, submitting a paper where he KNEW the photo of the blot was altered to change the result. It is not like one Cell paper more or less was going to have any effect on his career. Aside from any moral objections, why do it? You gain nothing but could lose everything. Just not worth the risk. Until we know "what he knew and when he knew it", I don't think we can say he was in any way dishonest.

It MIGHT be possible to criticize his supervision of his post-doc if in fact that was where the alteration took place. Unfortunately, we may never really know that. The post-doc can't claim they didn't know the published figure didn't match reality if in fact the post-doc did the experiment. If OTOH it was a grad student, even that isn't for sure.

[Goose]

So first off, the images were digitally altered, unclear if by MTL or an associate at this time. It was not something that just happened due to random chance or serendipity. So either MTL altered images, encouraged others to alter the images, or in the best light, did not notice that the images had been altered until someone else pointed it out.

Don't forget the fourth option. MTL never saw anything but the altered images. He may not have known they were altered until the program spotted the indications that a human would not see. FWIW, if I had a set of images that "needed" altering to make my point, I sure wouldn't show the unaltered ones to anybody first.

Also, while he did submit corrections after someone else noticed the problems, he did not submit any correction for the most problematic issue, a western blot in the Cell paper that had not been identified as altered until recently and that was an alteration that actually impacts the interpretation of the results, while the others could more generously be seen as making the pictures look nicer.

Again, they had not been identified as altered "until recently". It could have been news to him as much as it was to anybody else. I just don't see MTL, who was already well known, submitting a paper where he KNEW the photo of the blot was altered to change the result. It is not like one Cell paper more or less was going to have any effect on his career. Aside from any moral objections, why do it? You gain nothing but could lose everything. Just not worth the risk. Until we know "what he knew and when he knew it", I don't think we can say he was in any way dishonest.

It MIGHT be possible to criticize his supervision of his post-doc if in fact that was where the alteration took place. Unfortunately, we may never really know that. The post-doc can't claim they didn't know the published figure didn't match reality if in fact the post-doc did the experiment. If OTOH it was a grad student, even that isn't for sure.