4 ms·

No in the case about academic fraud I'm with you, i.e. I do feel that it should be exposed if it existed (but on that theme I actually have a lot to say, becaus

No in the case about academic fraud I'm with you, i.e. I do feel that it should be exposed if it existed (but on that theme I actually have a lot to say, because I see it as a failure of the publication methods and evaluation above all... but that is not related to this theme). What I find hard to believe is that, after all the issues that German had with the team before coming up with those accusations, those accusations are actually true. Specially given the exact accusation, which is quite odd, German claims that some (not all) points are false about experiments where he wasn't directly involved. Still, in any case, even without the issue of academic fraud and/or it's accusation existing, the previous behavior from German is not that of someone I would like to have my team as a colleague, much less if I was the PI. I never in my life had anything that amounted to this kind of trouble with any member of my team at work... much less with 5 of them. SO, on that light, I think there is a problem when the PI doesn't have enough authority to remove someone like German.

nkurz 10y ago
What I find hard to believe is that, after all the issues that German had with the team before coming up with those accusations, those accusations are actually true. If the personality conflicts arose before the accusation of fraud, I'd agree with you, but it's not clear that this was the order of events. The judge's description suggests that the conflicts arose after the report of fraud, with the implication that despite anonymity the accused (who were the ones with whom there was conflict) immediately concluded that German was the source of the accusation. So for me, it all depends on whether the accusations of academic fraud of justified. If the accusations are true and substantial, German is probably the aggrieved party, or at least deserving of sympathy. If they are not, he is poisonous to the the lab and should be cast out. Without knowing the details of the complaint, I don't feel I have any way of knowing the probabilities of the different possibilities. Circumstantially, I was impressed though by the rationality and civility of German's communications that were cited in the judge's ruling[1]. His email to an undergraduate advisee explaining that he was unable to continue his labwork seemed like a model of tact and good communication: "Hi Alex, unfortunately, due to personal matters I'm off from school. I don't know when I'm coming back. Meanwhile, you have to find another mentor. I highly recommend you to contact Becca (Rebecca Gibbs) for a mentor since she is a very bright scientist (mentored by me) and she was interested in having an undergraduate. This is the most I can do for you at the moment. I'm very sorry about this. My best, Gustavo." That this was the letter used to justify the attempt to have German involuntarily committed for his own safety (emphasizing "I don't know when I'm coming back") makes me doubt the doubt the "good will" of the advisor. The judge shared this doubt, although it's entirely possible there is further background not brought up in the trial that would justify the advisor's concern. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:86cjl1rV_t0J:https://www.socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/gustavo-german-plaintiff-vs.-david-lopes-cardozo-and-lee-l.-rubin-defendants+&cd=1&hl=en https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:86cjl1...

nkurz 10y ago

What I find hard to believe is that, after all the issues that German had with the team before coming up with those accusations, those accusations are actually true. If the personality conflicts arose before the accusation of fraud, I'd agree with you, but it's not clear that this was the order of events. The judge's description suggests that the conflicts arose after the report of fraud, with the implication that despite anonymity the accused (who were the ones with whom there was conflict) immediately concluded that German was the source of the accusation. So for me, it all depends on whether the accusations of academic fraud of justified. If the accusations are true and substantial, German is probably the aggrieved party, or at least deserving of sympathy. If they are not, he is poisonous to the the lab and should be cast out. Without knowing the details of the complaint, I don't feel I have any way of knowing the probabilities of the different possibilities. Circumstantially, I was impressed though by the rationality and civility of German's communications that were cited in the judge's ruling[1]. His email to an undergraduate advisee explaining that he was unable to continue his labwork seemed like a model of tact and good communication: "Hi Alex, unfortunately, due to personal matters I'm off from school. I don't know when I'm coming back. Meanwhile, you have to find another mentor. I highly recommend you to contact Becca (Rebecca Gibbs) for a mentor since she is a very bright scientist (mentored by me) and she was interested in having an undergraduate. This is the most I can do for you at the moment. I'm very sorry about this. My best, Gustavo." That this was the letter used to justify the attempt to have German involuntarily committed for his own safety (emphasizing "I don't know when I'm coming back") makes me doubt the doubt the "good will" of the advisor. The judge shared this doubt, although it's entirely possible there is further background not brought up in the trial that would justify the advisor's concern. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:86cjl1rV_t0J:https://www.socialaw.com/services/slip-opinions/slip-opinion-details/gustavo-german-plaintiff-vs.-david-lopes-cardozo-and-lee-l.-rubin-defendants+&cd=1&hl=en https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:86cjl1...