4 ms·
From the article: > The report concluded that the fudging of results under Tessier-Lavigne’s purview “spanned labs at three separate institutions.” It identifi
by 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 agoObviously, 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.
- scottlamb 3y agoThe investigation has already found there was fraud. And from his failure to issue retractions for years after he was told, one can conclude he was at best indifferent to it. What it hasn't found is evidence he got his own hands dirty or that he explicitly ordered fraud, and I'm not sure it will. raincom's comment [1] was dead on. I'm unsure if this distinction holds any significance for him personally. One reason I call it out is that it's worth considering how to deter this kind of "leadership" when drafting scientific ethical standards or even laws. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36792536 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36792536
- llbeansandrice 3y agoHow is creating a culture that incentivized and rewards fraud any better? I guess you can technically claim plausible deniability but I don’t think he gets a pass here at all.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> How is creating a culture that incentivized and rewards fraud any better? You're asking why accidentally creating ripe conditions for fraud isn't as bad as willfully committing fraud?
- ambicapter 3y agoThe word "accidentally" is doing a lot of work here.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoPrecisely, that of the benefit of doubt.
- hnfong 3y agoSo, the doubt "speaks volumes about his character"? (quoting the original comment) I don't think it speaks of anything at all, in the best case.
- hgsgm 3y agoIt shows ability to scale as a leader and be a force multiplier.
- scottlamb 3y agoI don't think it is any better. But let's describe what (we know) he did correctly.
- raincom 3y agoThat’s the same culture c-level executives inculcate: (a) don’t put anything in writing (b) don’t explicitly ask to do unethical things (c) use layers of lawyers or of other executives to evade culpability (d) since voice calls can be recorded, hire yes-men from one’s own network to use code-language or para-linguistic cues to execute illegal and/or illegal stuff