Quote:According to Bik, this paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Science, contains figures with image alteration. “The photoshopping was done intentionally, there’s no way around it,” said Bik in an interview with The Daily after examining the areas surrounding gel bands for patterns and with forensic tools, though she added the motivation was unclear and could have been something other than falsification.
Quote:Bik and the other research misconduct experts who spoke on the condition of anonymity concurred that proving intentional malice from published papers is near impossible without the completion of a formal review. Ferric Fang, a prominent neurobiologist who has also served as the editor-in-chief of scientific journal Infection and Immunity, wrote in an email to The Daily that he agreed with Bik that several of the figures in the four papers “look problematic.”
“I am not saying that all of these image problems are innocent— just that it is not possible to…assign responsibility without a more formal inquiry and an examination of the primary data,” Fang wrote. “I cannot say more than that.”
Quote:According to Bik, this paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Science, contains figures with image alteration. “The photoshopping was done intentionally, there’s no way around it,” said Bik in an interview with The Daily after examining the areas surrounding gel bands for patterns and with forensic tools, though she added the motivation was unclear and could have been something other than falsification.
Quote:Bik and the other research misconduct experts who spoke on the condition of anonymity concurred that proving intentional malice from published papers is near impossible without the completion of a formal review. Ferric Fang, a prominent neurobiologist who has also served as the editor-in-chief of scientific journal Infection and Immunity, wrote in an email to The Daily that he agreed with Bik that several of the figures in the four papers “look problematic.”
“I am not saying that all of these image problems are innocent— just that it is not possible to…assign responsibility without a more formal inquiry and an examination of the primary data,” Fang wrote. “I cannot say more than that.”
(12-05-2022, 04:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I would go back to Bik's comments in the original Daily:
Quote:According to Bik, this paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Science, contains figures with image alteration. “The photoshopping was done intentionally, there’s no way around it,” said Bik in an interview with The Daily after examining the areas surrounding gel bands for patterns and with forensic tools, though she added the motivation was unclear and could have been something other than falsification.
Quote:Bik and the other research misconduct experts who spoke on the condition of anonymity concurred that proving intentional malice from published papers is near impossible without the completion of a formal review. Ferric Fang, a prominent neurobiologist who has also served as the editor-in-chief of scientific journal Infection and Immunity, wrote in an email to The Daily that he agreed with Bik that several of the figures in the four papers “look problematic.”
“I am not saying that all of these image problems are innocent— just that it is not possible to…assign responsibility without a more formal inquiry and an examination of the primary data,” Fang wrote. “I cannot say more than that.”
If the experts in the field who have seen this many times are not willing to condemn MTL until the outputs of an investigation, then I don't think we should either.
BC
(12-05-2022, 04:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote: I would go back to Bik's comments in the original Daily:
Quote:According to Bik, this paper, which was published in the prestigious journal Science, contains figures with image alteration. “The photoshopping was done intentionally, there’s no way around it,” said Bik in an interview with The Daily after examining the areas surrounding gel bands for patterns and with forensic tools, though she added the motivation was unclear and could have been something other than falsification.
Quote:Bik and the other research misconduct experts who spoke on the condition of anonymity concurred that proving intentional malice from published papers is near impossible without the completion of a formal review. Ferric Fang, a prominent neurobiologist who has also served as the editor-in-chief of scientific journal Infection and Immunity, wrote in an email to The Daily that he agreed with Bik that several of the figures in the four papers “look problematic.”
“I am not saying that all of these image problems are innocent— just that it is not possible to…assign responsibility without a more formal inquiry and an examination of the primary data,” Fang wrote. “I cannot say more than that.”
If the experts in the field who have seen this many times are not willing to condemn MTL until the outputs of an investigation, then I don't think we should either.
BC
(12-05-2022, 06:53 PM)82lsju Wrote: and I would feel much better about the investigation if it was being done by an independent organization and not the Stanford BoT who while they say they will use subject matter experts appear to not be well suited to execute this investigation.
(12-05-2022, 06:53 PM)82lsju Wrote: and I would feel much better about the investigation if it was being done by an independent organization and not the Stanford BoT who while they say they will use subject matter experts appear to not be well suited to execute this investigation.
(12-05-2022, 04:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If the experts in the field who have seen this many times are not willing to condemn MTL until the outputs of an investigation, then I don't think we should either.
BC
Quote:The newly identified apparent manipulation in Cell is especially serious as it seems to alter the results and appears to be intentional, said Bik. “I would testify in court that’s been digitally altered,” she told STAT. “This actually changes everything. … It’s a more severe level of digital altering.”
The image in question is a western blot, which is used to determine the presence of specific proteins in biological samples. The authors claim the results shown in this western blot help demonstrate that two proteins only form a complex in the presence of a signaling molecule, which in turn, is key to supporting the paper’s findings about how these protein complexes guide the direction of the growth of axons, the long, winding projections neurons send out to connect with other neurons.
Rather than simply improving appearances, as some alterations may do, this one “appears to be changing the actual results,” said Bik.
Quote:Paul Brookes, professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York who created a blog to flag signs of scientific fraud, noted that it can be hard to determine when duplication is intentional and when it is accidental. ”But in this case I’m inclined to agree that sections of background appearing to be cloned does not seem to be something that could have occurred accidentally,” he wrote in an email to STAT.
Quote:Bik said she disagreed with Stanford’s defense. “To me, automatically dismissing it is the wrong answer, it doesn’t show to me they care about scientific integrity,” she said. “At some point, you can’t just blame it on an error, it seems to be a pattern.”
.......
“These problems seem to be following him along his career,” said Bik. Even if Tessier-Lavigne didn’t directly create the images, she said, the fact that these issues have occurred on papers he’s involved in alongside multiple teams makes them harder to dismiss as the work of a wayward graduate student.
......
Research labs are often highly hierarchical, and Bik said that, though she did not know details of Tessier-Lavigne’s lab culture, a senior figure who’s repeatedly associated with manipulated images could be creating an unhealthy work environment. “It might suggest there’s an atmosphere he creates in his labs. Maybe intense pressure or an unwillingness to accept a result giving him different results than he wanted. … That’s not an unusual situation,” she said.
(12-05-2022, 04:59 PM)BostonCard Wrote: If the experts in the field who have seen this many times are not willing to condemn MTL until the outputs of an investigation, then I don't think we should either.
BC
Quote:The newly identified apparent manipulation in Cell is especially serious as it seems to alter the results and appears to be intentional, said Bik. “I would testify in court that’s been digitally altered,” she told STAT. “This actually changes everything. … It’s a more severe level of digital altering.”
The image in question is a western blot, which is used to determine the presence of specific proteins in biological samples. The authors claim the results shown in this western blot help demonstrate that two proteins only form a complex in the presence of a signaling molecule, which in turn, is key to supporting the paper’s findings about how these protein complexes guide the direction of the growth of axons, the long, winding projections neurons send out to connect with other neurons.
Rather than simply improving appearances, as some alterations may do, this one “appears to be changing the actual results,” said Bik.
Quote:Paul Brookes, professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York who created a blog to flag signs of scientific fraud, noted that it can be hard to determine when duplication is intentional and when it is accidental. ”But in this case I’m inclined to agree that sections of background appearing to be cloned does not seem to be something that could have occurred accidentally,” he wrote in an email to STAT.
Quote:Bik said she disagreed with Stanford’s defense. “To me, automatically dismissing it is the wrong answer, it doesn’t show to me they care about scientific integrity,” she said. “At some point, you can’t just blame it on an error, it seems to be a pattern.”
.......
“These problems seem to be following him along his career,” said Bik. Even if Tessier-Lavigne didn’t directly create the images, she said, the fact that these issues have occurred on papers he’s involved in alongside multiple teams makes them harder to dismiss as the work of a wayward graduate student.
......
Research labs are often highly hierarchical, and Bik said that, though she did not know details of Tessier-Lavigne’s lab culture, a senior figure who’s repeatedly associated with manipulated images could be creating an unhealthy work environment. “It might suggest there’s an atmosphere he creates in his labs. Maybe intense pressure or an unwillingness to accept a result giving him different results than he wanted. … That’s not an unusual situation,” she said.
(12-05-2022, 02:14 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-05-2022, 10:10 AM)msqueri Wrote: Not following the details as closely as some but my basic impression is that this adds to a long, long, long list of disillusioning data points that Stanford isn't the good guy we pretend we are. Just dismaying to see how often corruption and other vices rear their ugly head.
Denying admission to athletes who aren't elite in classrooms designed to create cogs in a machine, to create the illusion of moral superiority, while being corrupt and unethical, is the Stanford way.
WTF do you expect with a school founded by a Robber Barron?
I personally have never bought into the Stanford superiority ruse. There are no doubt very bright and accomplished people at Stanford, but it also produces some very shady people.
Perish the thought that High School kids who only get a 3.0 average while excelling in athletics, actually be given the opportunity to get a Stanford education.
(12-05-2022, 02:14 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-05-2022, 10:10 AM)msqueri Wrote: Not following the details as closely as some but my basic impression is that this adds to a long, long, long list of disillusioning data points that Stanford isn't the good guy we pretend we are. Just dismaying to see how often corruption and other vices rear their ugly head.
Denying admission to athletes who aren't elite in classrooms designed to create cogs in a machine, to create the illusion of moral superiority, while being corrupt and unethical, is the Stanford way.
WTF do you expect with a school founded by a Robber Barron?
I personally have never bought into the Stanford superiority ruse. There are no doubt very bright and accomplished people at Stanford, but it also produces some very shady people.
Perish the thought that High School kids who only get a 3.0 average while excelling in athletics, actually be given the opportunity to get a Stanford education.
(12-05-2022, 08:44 PM)martyup Wrote:(12-05-2022, 02:14 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-05-2022, 10:10 AM)msqueri Wrote: Not following the details as closely as some but my basic impression is that this adds to a long, long, long list of disillusioning data points that Stanford isn't the good guy we pretend we are. Just dismaying to see how often corruption and other vices rear their ugly head.
Denying admission to athletes who aren't elite in classrooms designed to create cogs in a machine, to create the illusion of moral superiority, while being corrupt and unethical, is the Stanford way.
WTF do you expect with a school founded by a Robber Barron?
I personally have never bought into the Stanford superiority ruse. There are no doubt very bright and accomplished people at Stanford, but it also produces some very shady people.
Perish the thought that High School kids who only get a 3.0 average while excelling in athletics, actually be given the opportunity to get a Stanford education.
Wow, you really have a deep-seated hatred for Stanford University. It makes me wonder why you want to be a member of this board.
(12-05-2022, 08:44 PM)martyup Wrote:(12-05-2022, 02:14 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(12-05-2022, 10:10 AM)msqueri Wrote: Not following the details as closely as some but my basic impression is that this adds to a long, long, long list of disillusioning data points that Stanford isn't the good guy we pretend we are. Just dismaying to see how often corruption and other vices rear their ugly head.
Denying admission to athletes who aren't elite in classrooms designed to create cogs in a machine, to create the illusion of moral superiority, while being corrupt and unethical, is the Stanford way.
WTF do you expect with a school founded by a Robber Barron?
I personally have never bought into the Stanford superiority ruse. There are no doubt very bright and accomplished people at Stanford, but it also produces some very shady people.
Perish the thought that High School kids who only get a 3.0 average while excelling in athletics, actually be given the opportunity to get a Stanford education.
Wow, you really have a deep-seated hatred for Stanford University. It makes me wonder why you want to be a member of this board.
Quote:.... It makes me wonder why ....
Quote:.... It makes me wonder why ....
Quote:“Based on the guide, had the research been conducted at SLAC I imagine we would already be processing MTL’s paperwork for dismissal for cause,” Chassin wrote. “The fact that his past research activities did not conform with Stanford’s standards at that time is the most relevant question in my mind, and these revelations should disqualify him from holding any current position at Stanford or SLAC. The credibility of the entire organization is at stake and it should be painfully obvious to all that his personal privilege is subordinated to that of the organization he leads.”
Quote:“Based on the guide, had the research been conducted at SLAC I imagine we would already be processing MTL’s paperwork for dismissal for cause,” Chassin wrote. “The fact that his past research activities did not conform with Stanford’s standards at that time is the most relevant question in my mind, and these revelations should disqualify him from holding any current position at Stanford or SLAC. The credibility of the entire organization is at stake and it should be painfully obvious to all that his personal privilege is subordinated to that of the organization he leads.”
Quote:Marc Tessier-Lavigne, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t directly involved in the data manipulation. However, as a leader, you need to step down or step aside for the time being. Right now, you no longer represent the best of us — because ultimately, in each of these papers that have been identified, you were a leader on that research team and ultimately responsible. You should have been in charge of making sure that the work that bore your name was held to the highest integrity. As a PI, you were in charge of ensuring a positive and honest environment in your laboratories. Instead, those environments may have become negligent — or, at worst, intentionally harmful.
Quote:Marc Tessier-Lavigne, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t directly involved in the data manipulation. However, as a leader, you need to step down or step aside for the time being. Right now, you no longer represent the best of us — because ultimately, in each of these papers that have been identified, you were a leader on that research team and ultimately responsible. You should have been in charge of making sure that the work that bore your name was held to the highest integrity. As a PI, you were in charge of ensuring a positive and honest environment in your laboratories. Instead, those environments may have become negligent — or, at worst, intentionally harmful.
(12-09-2022, 08:19 AM)82lsju Wrote: opinion piece by a bioengineering PhD student from the Daily which says in part
Quote:Marc Tessier-Lavigne, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t directly involved in the data manipulation. However, as a leader, you need to step down or step aside for the time being. Right now, you no longer represent the best of us — because ultimately, in each of these papers that have been identified, you were a leader on that research team and ultimately responsible. You should have been in charge of making sure that the work that bore your name was held to the highest integrity. As a PI, you were in charge of ensuring a positive and honest environment in your laboratories. Instead, those environments may have become negligent — or, at worst, intentionally harmful.
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/12/08/opi...ec-08-2022
(12-09-2022, 08:19 AM)82lsju Wrote: opinion piece by a bioengineering PhD student from the Daily which says in part
Quote:Marc Tessier-Lavigne, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t directly involved in the data manipulation. However, as a leader, you need to step down or step aside for the time being. Right now, you no longer represent the best of us — because ultimately, in each of these papers that have been identified, you were a leader on that research team and ultimately responsible. You should have been in charge of making sure that the work that bore your name was held to the highest integrity. As a PI, you were in charge of ensuring a positive and honest environment in your laboratories. Instead, those environments may have become negligent — or, at worst, intentionally harmful.
https://stanforddaily.com/2022/12/08/opi...ec-08-2022
(12-07-2022, 08:29 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:Quote:“Based on the guide, had the research been conducted at SLAC I imagine we would already be processing MTL’s paperwork for dismissal for cause,” Chassin wrote. “The fact that his past research activities did not conform with Stanford’s standards at that time is the most relevant question in my mind, and these revelations should disqualify him from holding any current position at Stanford or SLAC. The credibility of the entire organization is at stake and it should be painfully obvious to all that his personal privilege is subordinated to that of the organization he leads.”
Amen.
I'm not as concerned as Bik is that a former DA is running the investigation, as long as they involve qualified independent scientists as well. This will be a complicated investigation and I think a DA has more relevant experience.
(12-07-2022, 08:29 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:Quote:“Based on the guide, had the research been conducted at SLAC I imagine we would already be processing MTL’s paperwork for dismissal for cause,” Chassin wrote. “The fact that his past research activities did not conform with Stanford’s standards at that time is the most relevant question in my mind, and these revelations should disqualify him from holding any current position at Stanford or SLAC. The credibility of the entire organization is at stake and it should be painfully obvious to all that his personal privilege is subordinated to that of the organization he leads.”
Amen.
I'm not as concerned as Bik is that a former DA is running the investigation, as long as they involve qualified independent scientists as well. This will be a complicated investigation and I think a DA has more relevant experience.
Quote:The initial controversy triggered scrutiny of other papers Tessier-Lavigne co-authored and revealed additional problematic images. Image manipulation experts say at least some of the errors appear minor. Still, Tessier-Lavigne should step aside during the probe, one observer suggests. “The in-house investigation will have more credibility,” says Richard Smith, a former editor of The BMJ. “And his position as president is compromised when facing these serious accusations.”
Quote:The initial controversy triggered scrutiny of other papers Tessier-Lavigne co-authored and revealed additional problematic images. Image manipulation experts say at least some of the errors appear minor. Still, Tessier-Lavigne should step aside during the probe, one observer suggests. “The in-house investigation will have more credibility,” says Richard Smith, a former editor of The BMJ. “And his position as president is compromised when facing these serious accusations.”
(12-09-2022, 05:13 PM)jonnyss Wrote:(12-07-2022, 08:29 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:Quote:“Based on the guide, had the research been conducted at SLAC I imagine we would already be processing MTL’s paperwork for dismissal for cause,” Chassin wrote. “The fact that his past research activities did not conform with Stanford’s standards at that time is the most relevant question in my mind, and these revelations should disqualify him from holding any current position at Stanford or SLAC. The credibility of the entire organization is at stake and it should be painfully obvious to all that his personal privilege is subordinated to that of the organization he leads.”
Amen.
I'm not as concerned as Bik is that a former DA is running the investigation, as long as they involve qualified independent scientists as well. This will be a complicated investigation and I think a DA has more relevant experience.
as long as the DA understands that the standard of academic integrity is very different from the standard a DA uses when considering whether a criminal case goes to trial. i would presume the typical DA would look at this at say, what's the fuss about?
(12-09-2022, 05:13 PM)jonnyss Wrote:(12-07-2022, 08:29 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:Quote:“Based on the guide, had the research been conducted at SLAC I imagine we would already be processing MTL’s paperwork for dismissal for cause,” Chassin wrote. “The fact that his past research activities did not conform with Stanford’s standards at that time is the most relevant question in my mind, and these revelations should disqualify him from holding any current position at Stanford or SLAC. The credibility of the entire organization is at stake and it should be painfully obvious to all that his personal privilege is subordinated to that of the organization he leads.”
Amen.
I'm not as concerned as Bik is that a former DA is running the investigation, as long as they involve qualified independent scientists as well. This will be a complicated investigation and I think a DA has more relevant experience.
as long as the DA understands that the standard of academic integrity is very different from the standard a DA uses when considering whether a criminal case goes to trial. i would presume the typical DA would look at this at say, what's the fuss about?
(12-10-2022, 09:14 AM)winflop Wrote:When depriving someone of their liberty, the standard must be very high ("beyond.") When depriving someone of their property a little less so ("preponderance.") But when depriving someone of a highly paid, privileged position of largely symbolic leadership--failure to model the highest ethical standards should be enough for removal. For example, the fact that papers went out under his name which contained doctored images is on the face of it enough to remove him, full stop. Questions such as whether he was personally responsible for the manipulation of the images or whether he was aware of it would be relevant to a criminal proceeding or a lawsuit, but they are beside the point when judging his suitability to be in his position of leadership. Our standard for leadership is higher than "he was only sloppy with his proofreading of his colleague's contributions, not deliberately dishonest."(12-09-2022, 05:13 PM)jonnyss Wrote:(12-07-2022, 08:29 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:Quote:“Based on the guide, had the research been conducted at SLAC I imagine we would already be processing MTL’s paperwork for dismissal for cause,” Chassin wrote. “The fact that his past research activities did not conform with Stanford’s standards at that time is the most relevant question in my mind, and these revelations should disqualify him from holding any current position at Stanford or SLAC. The credibility of the entire organization is at stake and it should be painfully obvious to all that his personal privilege is subordinated to that of the organization he leads.”
Amen.
I'm not as concerned as Bik is that a former DA is running the investigation, as long as they involve qualified independent scientists as well. This will be a complicated investigation and I think a DA has more relevant experience.
as long as the DA understands that the standard of academic integrity is very different from the standard a DA uses when considering whether a criminal case goes to trial. i would presume the typical DA would look at this at say, what's the fuss about?
Anyone with a law degree understands the difference between the standard for civil (preponderance of evidence) and criminal (reasonable doubt). I'm confident that someone who is a former DA has been given guidance from BOT as to what the evidentiary standard is for this investigation
(12-10-2022, 09:14 AM)winflop Wrote:When depriving someone of their liberty, the standard must be very high ("beyond.") When depriving someone of their property a little less so ("preponderance.") But when depriving someone of a highly paid, privileged position of largely symbolic leadership--failure to model the highest ethical standards should be enough for removal. For example, the fact that papers went out under his name which contained doctored images is on the face of it enough to remove him, full stop. Questions such as whether he was personally responsible for the manipulation of the images or whether he was aware of it would be relevant to a criminal proceeding or a lawsuit, but they are beside the point when judging his suitability to be in his position of leadership. Our standard for leadership is higher than "he was only sloppy with his proofreading of his colleague's contributions, not deliberately dishonest."(12-09-2022, 05:13 PM)jonnyss Wrote:(12-07-2022, 08:29 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:Quote:“Based on the guide, had the research been conducted at SLAC I imagine we would already be processing MTL’s paperwork for dismissal for cause,” Chassin wrote. “The fact that his past research activities did not conform with Stanford’s standards at that time is the most relevant question in my mind, and these revelations should disqualify him from holding any current position at Stanford or SLAC. The credibility of the entire organization is at stake and it should be painfully obvious to all that his personal privilege is subordinated to that of the organization he leads.”
Amen.
I'm not as concerned as Bik is that a former DA is running the investigation, as long as they involve qualified independent scientists as well. This will be a complicated investigation and I think a DA has more relevant experience.
as long as the DA understands that the standard of academic integrity is very different from the standard a DA uses when considering whether a criminal case goes to trial. i would presume the typical DA would look at this at say, what's the fuss about?
Anyone with a law degree understands the difference between the standard for civil (preponderance of evidence) and criminal (reasonable doubt). I'm confident that someone who is a former DA has been given guidance from BOT as to what the evidentiary standard is for this investigation
