4 ms·
> Several former lab members provided details of experimental data from Zlokovic’s lab that they say were falsified. These included experiments referenced in th
by fabian2k 3y ago
> Several former lab members provided details of experimental data from Zlokovic’s lab that they say were falsified. These included experiments referenced in the whistleblower dossier. In some cases, they said, data points that would have invalidated the desired results were removed. “It was not real science. He already knew what he wanted to say” before the experiment was completed, one says. “I started hating science. … It made me sick.”
> Two of the insiders also say Zlokovic sometimes had his team improperly alter existing notebooks. Normally these notebooks—in which scientists record details of their work as it proceeds—provide a ground truth for an experiment’s methods and results. As a result, they’re also often central to misconduct investigations.
> But two of the former lab members say that after an experiment was completed and its results published, Zlokovic sometimes admonished his scientists to make sure the notebooks were “clean.” That was understood to mean pasting into them printouts of the published results and methodology or omitting contrary details that challenged the paper’s conclusions. Zlokovic explained that those changes were needed in case of an “audit,” according to the two scientists.
Those allegations are pretty damning if they are true. Falsifying lab notebooks is very obvious scientific misconduct, and there are no benign explanations for that.
- nerdponx 3y ago> scientific misconduct At what point do we just call it "lying" and "fraud"?
- ramraj07 3y agoIt is literally the same but a more refined term. Just like calling something distended instead of fat.
- dist-epoch 3y agoAt no point, because that would increase distrust in science. Trust scientists, even when they lie and cheat, they do it for a higher purpose that the general public can't understand.
- macinjosh 3y agoScience (with a capital S) is the modern incarnation of the church. They have special knowledge, special privilege, special language that the average person can't understand (like the church had Latin). We are supposed to listen and trust lest we be damned. I think its time for a reformation.
- acdha 3y agoThis is a terrible hot take. Science is no more immune to human misbehavior than any other institution but it has self-correction as a core principle. This guy is going down due to it, not getting shuffled off to another diocese. Many people would like that process to be faster but it’s doing better than most other areas of our society because there are so many people who do prioritize truth over personal loyalty or institutional reputation.
- macinjosh 3y agoThoughtless comments like this are how I know I am right. This is not a situation where a simple correction needs to be done. This guy caused damage and wasted limited time and resources. Sure we can throw out his results but science was still scammed. Losing your career for such egregious behavior is as limited a punishment for this as preiests being shuffled off. This guy should be in jail at the very least.
- acdha 3y agoHe likely will face charges - the United States government regularly charges people for grant fraud. Here's a particularly relevant example: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17660 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.17660
- Log_out_ 3y agoScience needs grant rewards for whistle blowers?
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoThat's probably part of it. Science needs an incentive rethink overall.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]