12-28-2022, 08:29 AM
The assumption in the letter is that any unacknowledged image manipulation ("fraudulent" or innocent) was not done by MTL. What he could be accused of is not detecting this manipulation, which would have been an "error". Some have also said he did not take appropriate steps to correct the error when it was reported to him.
The "grace of God" feeling in the letter is obviously due to the fact detecting such manipulation, especially back in 2000 when the software used to "detect" the suspicious areas did not exist, was virtually impossible. Another type of "fraud" would have been possible by manipulating the input to the blot to show exactly what you wanted to show. The sample was not what it was supposed to be. How do you detect that? Blot looks too "clean"? Some bands that should be there are missing? If done well, none of these would be the case. The PI can't completely protect against dishonesty in the lab. If somebody has a "history" of suspicious results, that is one thing. If not, it isn't likely that you are going to check every single step they take. It just isn't possible.
The "grace of God" feeling in the letter is obviously due to the fact detecting such manipulation, especially back in 2000 when the software used to "detect" the suspicious areas did not exist, was virtually impossible. Another type of "fraud" would have been possible by manipulating the input to the blot to show exactly what you wanted to show. The sample was not what it was supposed to be. How do you detect that? Blot looks too "clean"? Some bands that should be there are missing? If done well, none of these would be the case. The PI can't completely protect against dishonesty in the lab. If somebody has a "history" of suspicious results, that is one thing. If not, it isn't likely that you are going to check every single step they take. It just isn't possible.