As I have posted before, I am sympathetic to the idea that a PI can't necessarily "know" that one of his collaborators (whether "local" or "remote") is fabricating data. The Daily article does bring into question more than that however, at least as I understand it. The article says that others at Genentech were having trouble reproducing the result. This can happen for reasons other than fraud, but it does raise questions. The postdoc was asked to repeat the experiment. He allegedly did so and "reproduced" the result. Supposedly, the skeptics were suspicious. They then fiddled with his reagents so that a successful result would be impossible. They then asked for another repeat and the postdoc produced another "success". MTL was supposedly aware of all this, at least after the fact.
First, have I got this correct? Is that what is being reported by the Daily? If so, MTL really needed to retract the result. Not doing so would absolutely make him culpable. However, are those making the claims above willing to go "on the record" today? If not, are they credible at all? IMO once the accusation is at all public, you have to be willing to stand behind your accusation. Why would one go to all the trouble of fiddling with somebody else's reagents (a "not nice" thing to do) and yet be unwilling to stand up and say so at that time? I would imagine such a thing would have created a big "stir" even in a corporate setting. The idea that "the records may not be complete" may be true, but plenty of people would have known about it and NOBODY would have "forgot" it happened. This whole thing stinks in so many ways.
The first thing I want to know from an independent source: Is the data repeatable? Do we actually really know that (one way or the other), and if so, is their a citation? The second thing I want to hear is an "on the record" statement by a person with first hand knowledge of the subject that MTL knew it was not repeatable. The Daily seems to say such persons exist. Let them tell what they know on the record. If they will not, IMO they are not credible. At this point, MTL can't do anything to them.
First, have I got this correct? Is that what is being reported by the Daily? If so, MTL really needed to retract the result. Not doing so would absolutely make him culpable. However, are those making the claims above willing to go "on the record" today? If not, are they credible at all? IMO once the accusation is at all public, you have to be willing to stand behind your accusation. Why would one go to all the trouble of fiddling with somebody else's reagents (a "not nice" thing to do) and yet be unwilling to stand up and say so at that time? I would imagine such a thing would have created a big "stir" even in a corporate setting. The idea that "the records may not be complete" may be true, but plenty of people would have known about it and NOBODY would have "forgot" it happened. This whole thing stinks in so many ways.
The first thing I want to know from an independent source: Is the data repeatable? Do we actually really know that (one way or the other), and if so, is their a citation? The second thing I want to hear is an "on the record" statement by a person with first hand knowledge of the subject that MTL knew it was not repeatable. The Daily seems to say such persons exist. Let them tell what they know on the record. If they will not, IMO they are not credible. At this point, MTL can't do anything to them.