> All human systems are not like scientific theories that once you falsify one aspect of them, the whole entire thing is spoiled. Virtually everything that cou

> All human systems are not like scientific theories that once you falsify one aspect of them, the whole entire thing is spoiled. Virtually everything that counts as a research accomplishment is predicated on studies that are vetted through peer review. Imperfect as this process is, it is not capable of flagging research misconduct reliably. So most things we could list under accomplishments will likely require some amount of trust in the researchers. If you don't see how multiple independent examples of this trust being abused constitute a problem in this regard, then I suggest we leave it there. To be clear: the examples that I listed don't just relate to plagiarism, which would be misappropriation of results that are (hopefully) still true. Read the articles, there are many cases of suspected outright faking of results (often unlikely to be honest mistakes). I hope you never have a relative who has to rely on a cancer treatment based on fake research. I'm also not saying that Harvard is necessarily an outlier in this regard (unfortunately). But when it happens, I think we should call it what it is: bad, without buts.