It's really good. The most interesting part for me is toward the end where the article adduces evidence that Tessier-Lavigne rather than simply retracting inste

It's really good. The most interesting part for me is toward the end where the article adduces evidence that Tessier-Lavigne rather than simply retracting instead wrote later papers that swept the earlier conclusions under the rug. The investigators mastered not just the science but the bureaucracy of research, making it a great read at multiple levels. > Schrag, the Alzheimer’s researcher without knowledge of the internal review, told The Daily that “to his credit, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne authored several of the later studies which revised the findings of his 2009 paper.” Some smart kids over there in Palo Alto. I hope they keep at it when they graduate.