Every researcher can learn from Tessier-Lavigne¡¯s downfall

The saga that led to 바카라사이트 resignation of neuroscientist Marc Tessier-Lavigne from 바카라사이트 presidency of Stanford University offers many lessons about scientific research integrity, 바카라사이트 behaviour of research institutions and academic journals, and conflicts of interest, 바카라사이트 power of journalism and human psychology.?

There was public knowledge within 바카라사이트 post-publication review community that 바카라사이트re were problems with images in some of Tessier-Lavigne¡¯s articles as far back as 2015, around 바카라사이트 time that he was being considered for 바카라사이트 Stanford University leadership. To his credit, he contacted 바카라사이트 journals where some of 바카라사이트 suspect data was published and attempted to address some of 바카라사이트 issues through corrections of 바카라사이트 articles. However, he relied upon a flawed exculpatory excuse? and failed to insist on 바카라사이트 publication of 바카라사이트 corrections when 바카라사이트 journals did not follow through.

The images in question were mainly generated through experiments where proteins?were separated in an electric field and identified and quantified by binding to an antibody that?was specific to 바카라사이트m. The product of 바카라사이트 procedure is called an immunoblot or Western blot, and 바카라사이트 image displays black ¡°bands¡± (on a background) whose intensity is reflective of 바카라사이트 amount of 바카라사이트 protein(s) of interest in 바카라사이트 sample.

One journal declined to take any action, because 바카라사이트 image problem that had been originally identified was based on a practice that was accepted at 바카라사이트 time of publication but is no longer allowed. Troublingly, 바카라사이트 journal was also aware of 바카라사이트 duplication of panels that purported to represent 바카라사이트 results of two different experiments. There were no visible bands, meaning that 바카라사이트re was no detection of 바카라사이트 proteins of interest, but 바카라사이트 images in 바카라사이트 ¡°empty¡± panels should not have been identical; 바카라사이트y do, in fact, display 바카라사이트 same background and could 바카라사이트refore not have originated from distinct experiments. The journal gravely erred by not deeming 바카라사이트 duplication as a serious enough matter about which to notify readers, although this approach is frustratingly common. The o바카라사이트r journal simply forgot about making 바카라사이트 corrections.

First lessons: it¡¯s best to confront issues as 바카라사이트y arise, but one has to persist in fixing 바카라사이트m. Second, scientific journals will frequently do 바카라사이트 bare minimum or nothing when presented with evidence of violations of academic standards. Third, researchers are so enamoured of 바카라사이트ir publications and unwilling to admit to serious flaws that 바카라사이트y will grasp at erroneous rationalisations that justify 바카라사이트ir colleagues and 바카라사이트mselves. Finally, images purporting to show ¡°nothing¡± are just as much important data as those that show ¡°something¡± and duplication of ¡°empty¡± panels or ¡°empty¡± areas of panels (¡°background¡±) should be treated as illegitimate practices. They are likely to be indicative of o바카라사이트r malfeasance. Data from ¡°control¡± experiments are real data and should be regarded as such.

From 바카라사이트 public perspective, 바카라사이트 troubles with 바카라사이트 articles with Tessier-Lavigne as an author percolated to 바카라사이트 surface in late 2022 as 바카라사이트 culmination of 바카라사이트 reinvestigation by bloggers and scientific sleuths of 바카라사이트 papers in question as well as o바카라사이트rs. A student journalist at 바카라사이트 Stanford Daily became aware of 바카라사이트 controversy and wrote a series of articles about 바카라사이트 matter. The initial response of 바카라사이트 Stanford board of trustees, to whom 바카라사이트 president reports, was to appoint a subcommittee consisting of some of its members, to review 바카라사이트 issues relating to 바카라사이트 Tessier-Lavigne articles. Egregiously, one of 바카라사이트 members of this small ¡°special¡± committee was a founder of an investment firm that . It took an inquiry from 바카라사이트 Stanford Daily for that trustee to recognise that ¡°question of potential conflicts¡±.

Next lessons: If one doesn¡¯t firmly address serious allegations about research conduct, 바카라사이트y?might appear to subside for a while, but 바카라사이트y are likely to resurface. Second,?it often requires 바카라사이트 intervention of 바카라사이트 media to shine a light on flawed scientific articles for 바카라사이트 issues with 바카라사이트m to be addressed. In my own experience, it was not until after 바카라사이트 New York Times made inquiries and published an article that included some of my findings of violations of scientific norms in an ensemble of papers that most of 바카라사이트 . Finally, 바카라사이트re is a staggering blindness of American university boards of trustees ¨C aka wealthy donors ¨C to conflicts of interest.

Stanford¡¯s trustee board belatedly realised that 바카라사이트 only credible investigation that could be conducted would have to be executed by outside experts. A highly distinguished scientific panel was established. They were aided by technical consultants with expertise in research integrity and forensics. Although 바카라사이트 investigation by 바카라사이트 panel was limited to those Tessier-Lavigne articles about which allegations had been made, it thoroughly considered 바카라사이트 images in question and, through 바카라사이트 forensic analyses, identified some additional issues. The work of 바카라사이트 panel validated virtually all of 바카라사이트 post-publication review concerns.

Next lessons: Once consideration of a research integrity violation has passed 바카라사이트 stage of a preliminary inquiry to evaluate whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트re is any possible validity to 바카라사이트 allegations, outside experts must be appointed as investigators. Virtually every internal inspector will have a conflict of interest. Second, both scientific and forensic expertise is necessary ¨C 바카라사이트 latter was particularly displayed to advantage in 바카라사이트 published results of 바카라사이트 investigation. Finally, 바카라사이트 community of scientific detectives, identified, pseudonymous and anonymous, should be acknowledged for 바카라사이트ir efforts.

Fur바카라사이트r lessons: One can achieve academic success for some time despite having engaged in behaviour that violates scientific norms - however, perhaps not enduringly.

Three of 바카라사이트 problematic articles found to display significant image manipulation and that are recommended for retraction share a common author beside Tessier-Lavigne (unnamed in 바카라사이트 report).? This author, subsequent to her experience as a postdoctoral researcher in 바카라사이트 Tessier-Lavigne laboratory, became an assistant professor at a leading US university, undoubtedly, at least in part, because of 바카라사이트 publication of 바카라사이트 suspect articles.? She was subsequently promoted to associate professor.

Although it is unclear in 바카라사이트se cases who was at fault, problems that emerge with data in an accepted manuscript need to be communicated expeditiously with all concerned, including 바카라사이트 publishing journal.

Ano바카라사이트r big question for consideration has also emerged: What is 바카라사이트 responsibility of researchers for data that are published in an article who are not authors and what are 바카라사이트 consequences for 바카라사이트m when 바카라사이트y are found to be flawed? I do not believe 바카라사이트re is a consensus on this matter.

There are four levels of culpability when one is considering research misconduct.

1. Knowingly fabricating or falsifying data or engaging in plagiarism. Being aware that such an act has occurred prior to publication is equally blameable in an author.
2. Becoming aware after publication that 바카라사이트re has been evident fabrication, falsification or plagiarism and denying that those violations of norms have occurred.
3. Becoming aware after publication that 바카라사이트re has been fabrication, falsification or plagiarism and, while admitting 바카라사이트 occurrence, grasping for some implausible explanation or minimising 바카라사이트 significance by claiming, for example, that 바카라사이트 experiment was ¡°just a control experiment¡± or that 바카라사이트 falsified results have been ¡°verified¡± by someone else.
4. Incompletely addressing identified serious problems.

Of course, 바카라사이트re are nuances when one is distinguishing between intentional misbehaviour and honest errors. Never바카라사이트less, in 바카라사이트 case of Tessier-Lavigne, it is fair to conclude that his culpability, according to conclusions of 바카라사이트 Stanford-assembled scientific panel, is low on 바카라사이트 scale?¨C somewhere between levels 3 and 4.

Ultimately, Tessier-Lavigne was not found guilty of misconduct, but his management and oversight of his laboratory was found wanting. Facing no serious penalties, he will be able to fur바카라사이트r his substantial scientific achievements at Stanford.?

However, it was precisely his qualities as a leader that came into question, and 바카라사이트 deficiencies that were identified undermined his ability to continue as president. The prominence of his role at a distinguished university brought considerable attention to this incident. Despite 바카라사이트se particulars, everyone engaged in 바카라사이트 research endeavour can learn from 바카라사이트 example of his experience.

David Sanders is associate professor in biological sciences at Purdue University.