[M T]

I think I said this above somewhere: these investigations almost never turn up any dispositive evidence.  To prove MTL guilty, you'd either need to find someone who knows what happened and is willing to tank their career (who's hiring the guy who ratted on their boss?), or you'd need a smoking gun like finding files on MTL's computer labelled "image before fraud" and "image after fraud."  That never happens.  To prove MTL not guilty is pretty much impossible.

Did you consider the possibility of evidence existing proving him innocent of fraud?  Seems it's pretty hard to check in every dusty corner and under every bed and finally say, "Why I would have sworn he is guilty of fraud, but I can't find evidence anywhere.  Well, he continues to be guilty because he wasn't proven innocent.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

By the way, why is it that so many here cite reporters' opinions of original documents rather than going straight to the original?  If you want to see the Genentech report, it is here.   If you want derivative reporting of that report, the link was given above.

As I read the report, it clearly and specifically refutes the allegation in the title and second paragraph of the Feb. 17 Stanford Daily "Internal review found ‘falsified data’ in Stanford President’s Alzheimer’s research, colleagues allege". 

The inclusion in the report of finding #4 (unrelated to the papers in question) suggests that the faculty member who reported hearsay evidence that is the subject of the March 7 Daily article may have been confusing a different incident which resulted in a paper being retracted and the termination of a postdoc.


If this all blows up in Theo Baker's face, I wonder if he'll find a career in investigative reporting.

[M T]

I think I said this above somewhere: these investigations almost never turn up any dispositive evidence.  To prove MTL guilty, you'd either need to find someone who knows what happened and is willing to tank their career (who's hiring the guy who ratted on their boss?), or you'd need a smoking gun like finding files on MTL's computer labelled "image before fraud" and "image after fraud."  That never happens.  To prove MTL not guilty is pretty much impossible.

Did you consider the possibility of evidence existing proving him innocent of fraud?  Seems it's pretty hard to check in every dusty corner and under every bed and finally say, "Why I would have sworn he is guilty of fraud, but I can't find evidence anywhere.  Well, he continues to be guilty because he wasn't proven innocent.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it."

By the way, why is it that so many here cite reporters' opinions of original documents rather than going straight to the original?  If you want to see the Genentech report, it is here.   If you want derivative reporting of that report, the link was given above.

As I read the report, it clearly and specifically refutes the allegation in the title and second paragraph of the Feb. 17 Stanford Daily "Internal review found ‘falsified data’ in Stanford President’s Alzheimer’s research, colleagues allege". 

The inclusion in the report of finding #4 (unrelated to the papers in question) suggests that the faculty member who reported hearsay evidence that is the subject of the March 7 Daily article may have been confusing a different incident which resulted in a paper being retracted and the termination of a postdoc.


If this all blows up in Theo Baker's face, I wonder if he'll find a career in investigative reporting.