4 ms·
The denial quotes throughout the article are suspiciously narrow. In particular, they are always specific to the Nature paper, whick leaves plenty of opportuni
by evrydayhustling 4y ago
The denial quotes throughout the article are suspiciously narrow. In particular, they are always specific to the Nature paper, whick leaves plenty of opportunity for investigation and discussion of internal documents that preceded it.
- evrydayhustling 4y agoHave to reply to myself to say that Lavigne's own denial is much more robust. It is linked in a comment below.
- JadeNB 4y agoThe comment (by a user whose name ends with …HNtho): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34849006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34849006 . The rebuttal: https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/false-allegations-stanford-daily https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/false-allegati... .
- bhk 4y agoActually, it smacks of misdirection to me. He portrays the matter as one of a mistaken theory or hypothesis that was later invalidated (how science works), which deflects from the key allegation of experimental data being falsified or fabricated.
- itronitron 4y ago"I have never submitted a paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented." which is another way of saying... "it's not a lie if you believe it" To give them the benefit of the doubt though, if they realized the data was wrong they should have requested a retraction. That they didn't after being requested to do so speaks a lot, to me at least.