I also did a few Google searches and am no closer to figuring out who this is supposed to be :( For what it's worth, I agree with you that we shouldn't rush to

I also did a few Google searches and am no closer to figuring out who this is supposed to be :( For what it's worth, I agree with you that we shouldn't rush to judgement. While its certainly possible in this particular case that there was genuine misconduct, quite often there is a simple misunderstanding. As an anecdote, during my graduate work I had a fellow PhD candidate convinced his guide was out to sabotage his work, because it 'threatened' to overthrow the guide's long established model. He was convinced that the work of the prior student's work that clashed with his was fudged, and that the PI was covering it up. It is possible? Sure, but not very likely. It's a tad convenient when the people you disagree with also happen to be mustache twirling villains. I've seen a general trend with young academics at the beginning of their scientific career. They tend to be exuberant, convinced of their own superiority. Until that point, they've tended to be the smartest person in the room, the pick of the lot from among their peers. Hit graduate school, and suddenly everybody around you is just as smart as you, but that appreciation takes a few years to sink in. When your experiments don't work, it's hard to digest and easy to imagine the other guy cutting corners. I'm not suggesting that this is what happened with the top level comment, but could explain many of the other comments I see here.