• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

If it wasn't for that Pesky Kid

Gord_in_Toronto

Penultimate Amazing
Gord_in_Toronto
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
26,456
18-Year-Old's Science Reporting Leads Stanford President to Quit

Within months of starting his undergraduate at Stanford University, 18-year-old Theo Baker was already on the trail of a story that would lead him to become the youngest George Polk award winner in American journalism history.

His reporting for The Stanford Daily has now culminated in the resignation of Stanford's President: neuroscientist and billionaire Marc Tessier-Lavigne.
Click to expand...

How the mighty have fallen.
 
Last edited:
Not really very funny. It is actually quite serious.



Last week The PRESIDENT of Stanford University was exposed for data FRAUD. The evidence is shocking, and it is depressing to see how Marc Tessier-Lavigne is not being appropriately reprimanded for his malpractice.

This looks really bad for Stanford, but also it looks terrible for academia in general. He isn't the only example of data fraud in the industry either, the Francesca Gino case proved that.
Click to expand...

A lot of hand waving on the part of Stanford to wave the problem away.

EXTREMELY UNCONVINCING.

And, if you find it hard to trust random YouTube videos, Here is the New York Times:

The Research Scandal at Stanford Is More Common Than You Think
 
Yeah across different institutes, different labs, different research projects and there are only two commonalities, him and the image manipulations.

I frankly don't believe this is a series of students all doing the same type of data falsification across institutes and research projects because he was lax in checking their work.
 
theprestige said:
"Will no one rid me of these turbulent data points?"

Ten years later...

"My students misunderstood me, and acted entirely alone in this matter!"
Click to expand...

"Just because I am listed as lead author on this paper and claim to have done most of the work does not mean I am responsible for its contents or conclusions."
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Not really very funny. It is actually quite serious.



A lot of hand waving on the part of Stanford to wave the problem away.

EXTREMELY UNCONVINCING.
Click to expand...

I saw that one last night. Apparently the YouTube algorithm recommends similar things to me too.

That the images appear to have been manipulated seems beyond dispute.

If memory serves, he mentioned that other independent researchers were unable to replicate some of these results, another red flag.
 
I don't think failure to replicate is necessarily a red flag. It's certainly a barrier to advancement of the claim, but it's not like, "oh, we can't replicate, maybe you're a bad researcher, or lying, or both".

What I'm wondering is, what's the point? He's working for Genentech, he does some research, it doesn't pan out. Back to the drawing board? No, he publishes anyway. Even though he knows it can't be replicated and it won't actually profit his employer at all. So it's just back to the drawing board, with extra, useless, unethical steps.
 
theprestige said:
I don't think failure to replicate is necessarily a red flag. It's certainly a barrier to advancement of the claim, but it's not like, "oh, we can't replicate, maybe you're a bad researcher, or lying, or both".

What I'm wondering is, what's the point? He's working for Genentech, he does some research, it doesn't pan out. Back to the drawing board? No, he publishes anyway. Even though he knows it can't be replicated and it won't actually profit his employer at all. So it's just back to the drawing board, with extra, useless, unethical steps.
Click to expand...

Good grief. I wonder that about 90% of the stuff I read on the internet. The biggest unknown in the Universe is what goes on between the two ears of the human head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom