I would posit that it is defamatory by technical description. I think good faith collegiality requires reaching out to the person deemed to be a fraud and tryin

I would posit that it is defamatory by technical description. I think good faith collegiality requires reaching out to the person deemed to be a fraud and trying to resolve the matter as colleagues and peers instead of assuming bad faith and invoking a pitch-forks out call for decrying the fraudster. That said, the evidence laid out by the research group against Gino doesn't leave any doubt that fraud didn't take place. The defendants should prove that Gino would have covered up her tracks had they taken a more reasonable approach. Additionally, I think a stronger case can be made by involving the funding agencies that supported Gino's work as it's their money that was misspent. Lastly, it would make sense to bring evidence of Gino's work impacting downstream research or policies bc of its fraudulent claims. The last two points are essential if the defense is that maintaining the integrity of scientific research was the goal.