Medscape published an article a few days ago (below) about this. I was under the impression that there was proof that Duke management knew about the fact that P

Medscape published an article a few days ago (below) about this. I was under the impression that there was proof that Duke management knew about the fact that Potts-Kant falsified data. There was also evidence that she did not actually buy supplies necessary to even run the experiments: >>According to court records, colleagues had questions about whether Potts-Kant had even purchased methacoline, a drug she said she used in experiments. Meanwhile, Duke was trying to control the message. A colleague told Thomas at the time that Duke's research integrity office did not want the case to "snowball," and that it wanted to write any retraction notices. That would suggest there was no way she could have had the data. Even after they knew the data was bad (or probably bad), it was used by others as well was Potts-Kant to secure additional funding. I think the court couldn't definitively say when Duke became aware of the fraud, but I think they had enough reason to be concerned about the integrity of the data that they should have acted more strongly and been more forthright. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910922?nlid=129046_3902&src=wnl_newsexcl_190326_MSCPEDIT&uac=291999MV&impID=1918389&faf=1 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910922?nlid=129046_3902...