4 ms·

> Tessier-Lavigne defended his reputation but acknowledged that issues with his research, first raised in a Daily investigation last autumn, meant that Stanford

> Tessier-Lavigne defended his reputation but acknowledged that issues with his research, first raised in a Daily investigation last autumn, meant that Stanford requires a president “whose leadership is not hampered by such discussions.” This speaks volumes about his character. Any organization led by someone with questionable ethics poisons the trust and confidence of the entire organization. So good for him! Those kinds of ethics questions have a real impact on everyone else in the organization trying to do the right thing - as they bear the reputational harm with much less ability to just choose to go elsewhere. Knowingly, or even just negligently, putting your colleagues and employees in such a situation is a tragedy of leadership. It’s important to recognize that this would be a different story had he been ousted and protested or attempted a cover up. People mess up, but sometimes that means you don’t get to be a leader anymore. That’s what’s happening here and it seems like the right way we should treat these things.

peteradio 3y ago
If he knows he is at fault he should admit it as well as resign. Conversely, people should not be ousted based on false allegations.
koheripbal 3y ago
Given the rampant nepotism in Stanford admissions, the whole school needs to shut down.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  When you say nepotism, do you mean legacy admissions, or something else? I know a prominent alum who was able to get her kids into undergrad at Stanford, but not into their professional schools. Considering where they went after being rejected from Stanford, they were not remotely in the ballpark. It's good to know that there are limits to legacy admissions, even for rich/famous alums.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Sounds like she didn't pay someone enough.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jxramos 3y ago
    I think he's hinting at the John Vandemoer, Lori Loughlin and Rick Singer debacle. Sad bit of history for the university as well.
- jherico 3y ago
  I feel like with the skyrocketing costs of education in the US, fixing the problem is probably a better path than "burn it all down"
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kevinventullo 3y ago
You know what would speak even more highly of his character? Not publishing fraudulent research in the first place!
- UberFly 3y ago
  This exactly. Quitting after you've been caught doesn't require much character.
8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago
[flagged]
- jxramos 3y ago
  He's no John L. Hennessy that's for sure.
prepend 3y ago
> This speaks volumes about his character. I suppose it reveals that he resigned under pressure that forced him to after allegedly writing numerous falsified papers that led to his current credentials. Not sure that’s an ethics gold star or anything. I guess it’s better than “they’ll take me out of my office in a casket” and digging in, but still shows massive ethical failures and since ethics are usually not compartmentalized means that there’s probably other bad news that’s not revealed yet. I think the right way would have not to falsified research. Or to come clean on your own and resign before it’s a stink. As it is now, it’s bad for Stanford. And means the hiring committee didn’t do sufficient due diligence to even ask people on his field if his work was valid.
- scottlamb 3y ago
  From the article: > The report concluded that the fudging of results under Tessier-Lavigne’s purview “spanned labs at three separate institutions.” It identified a culture where Tessier-Lavigne “tended to reward the ‘winners’ (that is, postdocs who could generate favorable results) and marginalize or diminish the ‘losers’ (that is, postdocs who were unable or struggled to generate such data).” > There was no evidence that Tessier-Lavigne himself manipulated data in the papers reviewed, the report concluded, nor that he knew about manipulation at the time, but he “has not been able to provide an adequate explanation” for why he did not correct the scientific record when presented the opportunity on multiple occasions. In his statement, Tessier-Lavigne wrote that he was “gratified that the Panel concluded I did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data.” In other words, he created a culture in which fraud could be expected, and he didn't address it properly when it was brought to his attention. I'm not giving him any gold stars for ethics. But as far as I know, he didn't personally falsify research.
  - prepend 3y ago
    Obviously, we wait for the investigation to complete. But I don’t know of any valid reason someone would “not be able to provide an adequate explanation” for something so basic. Occam’s razor would make me think that if no one has ever seen the data and it made him famous, it’s probably fraud.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jdwithit 3y ago
> Stanford requires a president “whose leadership is not hampered by such discussions.” You'll notice he doesn't say "I regret my actions and the harm I caused". Just a vague allusion to "such discussions". As if the people discussing him falsifying research are somehow the problem. When someone goes down for a scandal, they rarely express true remorse or take responsibility. It's always "I'm sorry... that I got caught". His response speaks to his character, but I'm not sure it says what you think it does.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
feoren 3y ago
Yes, this speaks volumes about his character: > Tessier-Lavigne defended his reputation ... "issues with his research" ... "discussions" Meaning he believes he did nothing wrong and he's the target of "character assassination" by the Daily but he's being forced out by colleagues who want Harvard to come out of this scandal with half a shred of dignity. This is not him saying "aww, you got me, aight I'm out". This is him continuing to be a narcissistic, shitty human being refusing to admit that he could possibly be in the wrong in any way.
jxramos 3y ago
> Stanford is greater than any one of us. It needs a president whose leadership is not hampered by such discussions. I therefore concluded that I should step down before the start of classes. This decision is rooted in my respect for the University and its community and my unwavering commitment to doing what I believe is in the best interests of Stanford. https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/message-stanford-community#:~:text=Stanford%20is%20greater,interests%20of%20Stanford https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/message-stanfo.... I agree, good for him to humbly resign and not drag the reputation of the bigger institution into questionable territory. The news came as a shock this morning but it's a well written letter he publicly posted.
whimsicalism 3y ago
What? This is just standard resignation PR statement about not wanting to be a distraction for the rest of the organization while not admitting culpability. It's basically a form-letter.
danso 3y ago
> It’s important to recognize that this would be a different story had he been ousted and protested or attempted a cover up. I think it's very early to give a positive judgment for MTL's decision to resign. First of all, the most serious allegation by the Stanford Daily — that MTL knew of fraud at his Genentech lab and made an effort to cover it up — is still denied by MTL, Stanford, and Genentech. Either MTL & Genentech are lying, or the Daily made a mistake in its reporting. As of now, the Daily still stands by its reporting and Theo Baker published a follow-up about how Stanford's investigation may have been fundamentally flawed [0] But let's assume that the Daily is wrong, MTL's resignation statement omitted any accountability for the lesser but still damning charge: negligent leadership that fostered a research culture optimized (inadvertently or not) for fraud. As the Daily puts it: > The report concluded that the fudging of results under Tessier-Lavigne’s purview “spanned labs at three separate institutions.” It identified a culture where Tessier-Lavigne “tended to reward the ‘winners’ (that is, postdocs who could generate favorable results) and marginalize or diminish the ‘losers’ In MTL's letter to Stanford [1], he limits his culpability to not being diligent enough in correcting the errors and alleged fraud, all of which were the fault of his subordinates: > I agree that in some instances I should have been more diligent when seeking corrections, and I regret that I was not. The Panel’s review also identified instances of manipulation of research data by others in my lab. Although I was unaware of these issues, I want to be clear that I take responsibility for the work of my lab members. > ...These findings have also caused me to further reassess the processes and controls I have in place. While I continually maintain a critical eye on all the science in my lab, I have also always operated my lab on trust – trust in my students and postdocs, and trust that the data they were presenting to me was real and accurate. I get that there's a limit to how much self-flagellation he can do right now, but he's basically limited his culpability to: "my biggest weakness is that I respect and trust my colleagues and students too much!" In this era of Stanford-associated stories like Theranos and FTX, the prospect and danger of a leader who fosters fraudulent "winners" is something that should be addressed explicitly. [0] https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/19/sources-refused-to-participate-in-stanford-investigation-of-president-after-they-werent-guaranteed-anonymity/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/19/sources-refused-to-part... [1] https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/message-stanford-community https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/message-stanfo...

peteradio 3y ago

If he knows he is at fault he should admit it as well as resign. Conversely, people should not be ousted based on false allegations.

koheripbal 3y ago

Given the rampant nepotism in Stanford admissions, the whole school needs to shut down.

gnicholas 3y ago
When you say nepotism, do you mean legacy admissions, or something else? I know a prominent alum who was able to get her kids into undergrad at Stanford, but not into their professional schools. Considering where they went after being rejected from Stanford, they were not remotely in the ballpark. It's good to know that there are limits to legacy admissions, even for rich/famous alums.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Sounds like she didn't pay someone enough.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jxramos 3y ago
  I think he's hinting at the John Vandemoer, Lori Loughlin and Rick Singer debacle. Sad bit of history for the university as well.
jherico 3y ago
I feel like with the skyrocketing costs of education in the US, fixing the problem is probably a better path than "burn it all down"

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

kevinventullo 3y ago

You know what would speak even more highly of his character? Not publishing fraudulent research in the first place!

UberFly 3y ago
This exactly. Quitting after you've been caught doesn't require much character.

8f2ab37a-ed6c 3y ago

[flagged]

jxramos 3y ago
He's no John L. Hennessy that's for sure.

prepend 3y ago

> This speaks volumes about his character. I suppose it reveals that he resigned under pressure that forced him to after allegedly writing numerous falsified papers that led to his current credentials. Not sure that’s an ethics gold star or anything. I guess it’s better than “they’ll take me out of my office in a casket” and digging in, but still shows massive ethical failures and since ethics are usually not compartmentalized means that there’s probably other bad news that’s not revealed yet. I think the right way would have not to falsified research. Or to come clean on your own and resign before it’s a stink. As it is now, it’s bad for Stanford. And means the hiring committee didn’t do sufficient due diligence to even ask people on his field if his work was valid.

scottlamb 3y ago
From the article: > The report concluded that the fudging of results under Tessier-Lavigne’s purview “spanned labs at three separate institutions.” It identified a culture where Tessier-Lavigne “tended to reward the ‘winners’ (that is, postdocs who could generate favorable results) and marginalize or diminish the ‘losers’ (that is, postdocs who were unable or struggled to generate such data).” > There was no evidence that Tessier-Lavigne himself manipulated data in the papers reviewed, the report concluded, nor that he knew about manipulation at the time, but he “has not been able to provide an adequate explanation” for why he did not correct the scientific record when presented the opportunity on multiple occasions. In his statement, Tessier-Lavigne wrote that he was “gratified that the Panel concluded I did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data.” In other words, he created a culture in which fraud could be expected, and he didn't address it properly when it was brought to his attention. I'm not giving him any gold stars for ethics. But as far as I know, he didn't personally falsify research.
- prepend 3y ago
  Obviously, we wait for the investigation to complete. But I don’t know of any valid reason someone would “not be able to provide an adequate explanation” for something so basic. Occam’s razor would make me think that if no one has ever seen the data and it made him famous, it’s probably fraud.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jdwithit 3y ago

> Stanford requires a president “whose leadership is not hampered by such discussions.” You'll notice he doesn't say "I regret my actions and the harm I caused". Just a vague allusion to "such discussions". As if the people discussing him falsifying research are somehow the problem. When someone goes down for a scandal, they rarely express true remorse or take responsibility. It's always "I'm sorry... that I got caught". His response speaks to his character, but I'm not sure it says what you think it does.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

feoren 3y ago

Yes, this speaks volumes about his character: > Tessier-Lavigne defended his reputation ... "issues with his research" ... "discussions" Meaning he believes he did nothing wrong and he's the target of "character assassination" by the Daily but he's being forced out by colleagues who want Harvard to come out of this scandal with half a shred of dignity. This is not him saying "aww, you got me, aight I'm out". This is him continuing to be a narcissistic, shitty human being refusing to admit that he could possibly be in the wrong in any way.

jxramos 3y ago

> Stanford is greater than any one of us. It needs a president whose leadership is not hampered by such discussions. I therefore concluded that I should step down before the start of classes. This decision is rooted in my respect for the University and its community and my unwavering commitment to doing what I believe is in the best interests of Stanford. https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/message-stanford-community#:~:text=Stanford%20is%20greater,interests%20of%20Stanford https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/message-stanfo.... I agree, good for him to humbly resign and not drag the reputation of the bigger institution into questionable territory. The news came as a shock this morning but it's a well written letter he publicly posted.

whimsicalism 3y ago

What? This is just standard resignation PR statement about not wanting to be a distraction for the rest of the organization while not admitting culpability. It's basically a form-letter.

danso 3y ago

> It’s important to recognize that this would be a different story had he been ousted and protested or attempted a cover up. I think it's very early to give a positive judgment for MTL's decision to resign. First of all, the most serious allegation by the Stanford Daily — that MTL knew of fraud at his Genentech lab and made an effort to cover it up — is still denied by MTL, Stanford, and Genentech. Either MTL & Genentech are lying, or the Daily made a mistake in its reporting. As of now, the Daily still stands by its reporting and Theo Baker published a follow-up about how Stanford's investigation may have been fundamentally flawed [0] But let's assume that the Daily is wrong, MTL's resignation statement omitted any accountability for the lesser but still damning charge: negligent leadership that fostered a research culture optimized (inadvertently or not) for fraud. As the Daily puts it: > The report concluded that the fudging of results under Tessier-Lavigne’s purview “spanned labs at three separate institutions.” It identified a culture where Tessier-Lavigne “tended to reward the ‘winners’ (that is, postdocs who could generate favorable results) and marginalize or diminish the ‘losers’ In MTL's letter to Stanford [1], he limits his culpability to not being diligent enough in correcting the errors and alleged fraud, all of which were the fault of his subordinates: > I agree that in some instances I should have been more diligent when seeking corrections, and I regret that I was not. The Panel’s review also identified instances of manipulation of research data by others in my lab. Although I was unaware of these issues, I want to be clear that I take responsibility for the work of my lab members. > ...These findings have also caused me to further reassess the processes and controls I have in place. While I continually maintain a critical eye on all the science in my lab, I have also always operated my lab on trust – trust in my students and postdocs, and trust that the data they were presenting to me was real and accurate. I get that there's a limit to how much self-flagellation he can do right now, but he's basically limited his culpability to: "my biggest weakness is that I respect and trust my colleagues and students too much!" In this era of Stanford-associated stories like Theranos and FTX, the prospect and danger of a leader who fosters fraudulent "winners" is something that should be addressed explicitly. [0] https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/19/sources-refused-to-participate-in-stanford-investigation-of-president-after-they-werent-guaranteed-anonymity/ https://stanforddaily.com/2023/07/19/sources-refused-to-part... [1] https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/message-stanford-community https://tessier-lavigne-lab.stanford.edu/news/message-stanfo...