Link to full pdf of the Report issued by Stanford's "special committee:"
https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/site...Some extracts:
"There were repeated instances of manipulation of research data and/or subpar
scientific practices from different people and in labs run by Dr. Tessier-Lavigne at different institutions"
"At various times when concerns with Dr.
Tessier-Lavigne’s papers emerged—in 2001, the early 2010s, 2015-16, and March 2021—Dr.Tessier-Lavigne failed to decisively and forthrightly correct mistakes in the scientific record."
"However, a second theme emerged among some of the interviewees that the same lab culture also 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)"
Considering that Stanford's special committee has every reason to protect Tessier-Lavigne and damage control, the findings are quite damning.
Good on Theo Baker for continuing to provide a more critical perspective compared to the cushy political speak of the report.
Some extracts:
"There were repeated instances of manipulation of research data and/or subpar scientific practices from different people and in labs run by Dr. Tessier-Lavigne at different institutions"
"At various times when concerns with Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s papers emerged—in 2001, the early 2010s, 2015-16, and March 2021—Dr.Tessier-Lavigne failed to decisively and forthrightly correct mistakes in the scientific record."
"However, a second theme emerged among some of the interviewees that the same lab culture also 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)"
Considering that Stanford's special committee has every reason to protect Tessier-Lavigne and damage control, the findings are quite damning.
Good on Theo Baker for continuing to provide a more critical perspective compared to the cushy political speak of the report.