[Goose]

goose, regarding going on the record, as i understand the daily, theo baker is trying to raise awareness that the stanford board is doing only a superficial investigation. i believe he is saying that the board has had the info - in some cases for several months - to interview some or all of baker's sources but has thus far neglected to reach out. 

seems reasonable to me that the next step in credibility is for the board to interview those sources rather than for the sources to speak publicly.

If the board knows who these people are and does not talk to them it is indeed a whitewash. That shouldn't happen, obviously. However, IMO it won't help much if all the board can say is "Unnamed sources told us that...". The information has to be for attribution. Otherwise, it could be people who were never in a position to "know" and are just making it up.

also, some of the complaints now have to do with mtl's response, which is current, public, quite visible - and, apparently, to some faculty, in several ways not the dignified response of a university president.

MTL has, in fairness, the problem that he doesn't know who is saying what about events, and he can't reasonably refute what he doesn't know. It is almost impossible for him to be "dignified" when the accusations are as serious as these accusations are. MTL is undoubtedly "gone" no matter how this turns out. He is damaged goods at this point. Unfortunately for him, he did not aggressively defend himself at the start, which always leaves the impression of some kind of guilt. I would really like the accusations of knowingly refusing to retract falsified data to be investigated and the evidence made public, whatever it is (or isn't). It would be a real disservice to the scientific community if this cloud remained without resolution

[Goose]

goose, regarding going on the record, as i understand the daily, theo baker is trying to raise awareness that the stanford board is doing only a superficial investigation. i believe he is saying that the board has had the info - in some cases for several months - to interview some or all of baker's sources but has thus far neglected to reach out. 

seems reasonable to me that the next step in credibility is for the board to interview those sources rather than for the sources to speak publicly.

If the board knows who these people are and does not talk to them it is indeed a whitewash. That shouldn't happen, obviously. However, IMO it won't help much if all the board can say is "Unnamed sources told us that...". The information has to be for attribution. Otherwise, it could be people who were never in a position to "know" and are just making it up.

also, some of the complaints now have to do with mtl's response, which is current, public, quite visible - and, apparently, to some faculty, in several ways not the dignified response of a university president.

MTL has, in fairness, the problem that he doesn't know who is saying what about events, and he can't reasonably refute what he doesn't know. It is almost impossible for him to be "dignified" when the accusations are as serious as these accusations are. MTL is undoubtedly "gone" no matter how this turns out. He is damaged goods at this point. Unfortunately for him, he did not aggressively defend himself at the start, which always leaves the impression of some kind of guilt. I would really like the accusations of knowingly refusing to retract falsified data to be investigated and the evidence made public, whatever it is (or isn't). It would be a real disservice to the scientific community if this cloud remained without resolution