Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Stanford President Will Resign After Report Found Flaws in His Research (nytimes.com) 92

Posted by msmash from the end-of-road dept.
Following months of intense scrutiny of his scientific work, Marc Tessier-Lavigne announced Wednesday that he would resign as president of Stanford University after an independent review of his research found significant flaws in studies he supervised going back decades. From a report: The review, conducted by an outside panel of scientists, refuted the most serious claim involving Dr. Tessier-Lavigne's work -- that an important 2009 Alzheimer's study was the subject of an investigation that found falsified data and that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had covered it up. The panel concluded that the claim, published in February by The Stanford Daily, the campus newspaper, "appear to be mistaken" and that there was no evidence of falsified data, or that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had otherwise engaged in fraud.

But the review also stated that the 2009 study, conducted while he was an executive at the biotech company Genentech, had "multiple problems" and "fell below customary standards of scientific rigor and process," especially for a paper of such potential consequences. As a result of the review, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne said he would retract a 1999 paper that appeared in the journal Cell and two others that appeared in Science in 2001. Two other papers published in Nature, including the 2009 Alzheimer's study, would also undergo what was described as comprehensive correction. Stanford is known for its leadership in scientific research, and even though the claims involved work published before Dr. Tessier-Lavigne's arrival at the university in 2016, the allegations reflected poorly on the university's integrity.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stanford President Will Resign After Report Found Flaws in His Research More

Stanford President Will Resign After Report Found Flaws in His Research

Comments Filter:

  • Why? (Score:3)

    by ThurstonMoore ( 605470 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:01PM (#63699508)

    Why is he allowed to resign?

    • Resigning doesn't absolve anything but it saves the University from debating firing him. Why would you not allow a resignation?

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Chris Mattern ( 191822 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @03:11PM (#63699810)

        "Why would you not allow a resignation?"

        *How* would you not allow a resignation? "No, you can't resign. We're chaining you to your desk."

        • One of the chemists I work with resigned a couple of weeks ago and told the HR manager she was giving a month's notice.
          The HR manager told her she had to give at least 8 weeks because that's how long it would take to replace her.
          We all had a good laugh about that. I think the HR manager still thinks the chemist is staying until the end of August.
    • Sounds like you're one of the two Bobs and want to promote him?
    • Because the Board of Trustee's of Stanford made public today the results of the review by independent outside review, and almost certainly privately informed him that the Board was prepared to terminate his contact, but that he would be allowed to resign to avoid the embarrassment of that process and being terminated, and he took them up on their offer ("to spend more time with is family").

  • Was going to make Tessier-Ashpool joke, but I didn't want to raise the ire of the Turing Registry.

  • Why are single papers even accepted? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gTsiros ( 205624 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:10PM (#63699524)

    The whole idea of scientific rigor relies on reproducibility.

    If a paper describes a process that has *not* been yet reproduced, it holds exactly zero merit.

    Do we, as a society, take action based on papers that have not been independently reproduced/verified/replicated? Please tell me we're not that st nevermind, forget it

    • The whole idea of scientific rigor relies on reproducibility.

      If a paper describes a process that has *not* been yet reproduced, it holds exactly zero merit.

      Do we, as a society, take action based on papers that have not been independently reproduced/verified/replicated? Please tell me we're not that st nevermind, forget it

      Replication of results costs money. Who is going to replicate results for someone else's publication, unless there is money in it. If there is that kind of money in it, I suspect the research would be commercialized, rather than published.

      • Re:Why are single papers even accepted? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by smoot123 ( 1027084 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:32PM (#63699604)

        If a paper describes a process that has *not* been yet reproduced, it holds exactly zero merit.

        That's the Platonic ideal. I think reality falls far short. Specifically, if you're reporting a ground-breaking result, scientists keep that close to their vest until they publish. Reproducing the result comes after, if at all.

        My kid works in a research lab. Where I hear about reproducibility is when she wants to use the reported technique as part of her research. I think it's unfortunate but heard-of to try someone's procedure and find, to her frustration, that the technique doesn't actually work. Where I'd expect this to really show up is for large studies which take a long time and/or a lot of money. It's going to be rare someone spends a huge amount trying to reproduce that.

        TL;DR version: yet-to-be-reproduced results have some value, just not all their potential value.

        Do we, as a society, take action based on papers that have not been independently reproduced/verified/replicated?

        You answered your own question. Yes, yes of course we make decisions, large and small, on the basis of incomplete knowledge. Humans are nowhere near as methodical and unbiased as we'd like to think. Sometimes we just have to go with what we have, hopefully understanding the quality of the data we're using and maintaining an appropriate amount of skepticism.

        That's my takeaway from the replication crisis [wikipedia.org]. Don't panic or bet your future finances on the results of one headline. Take any reported result as an interesting data point but one which has a non-zero probability of being incorrect.

      • Re:Why are single papers even accepted? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Retired Chemist ( 5039029 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:58PM (#63699676)
        Someone has to do the first research, so that others can duplicate it. Some of this work was done for industry, that had a vested interest in the results being true, which is a separate issue. The fact is that biological research results are often very difficult to reproduce, because truly controlled experiments are impossible. Human testing is a particularly difficult area. The results usually come down to statistics, and it well known that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by larryjoe ( 135075 )

        The whole idea of scientific rigor relies on reproducibility.

        If a paper describes a process that has *not* been yet reproduced, it holds exactly zero merit.

        Do we, as a society, take action based on papers that have not been independently reproduced/verified/replicated? Please tell me we're not that st nevermind, forget it

        Replication of results costs money. Who is going to replicate results for someone else's publication, unless there is money in it. If there is that kind of money in it, I suspect the research would be commercialized, rather than published.

        It's much worse than that. No one gets a paper published for replicating someone else's work, and the name of the game is publication. In fact, arguing against a "respected" name is likely bad for one's career. So, the community needs replication, but the current economics of publishing strongly discourage replication due to high costs and zero/negative rewards.

        The only viable economics for replication is a company that decides that a technique is perhaps viable and profitable. It then privately validat

    • Re:Why are single papers even accepted? (Score:4, Informative)

      by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:14PM (#63699538)
      You have it exactly backwards. Reproducibility relies on scientific rigor.
      If something is not reproducible, then it likely wasn't sufficiently rigorous (or alternatively, was fraudulent)

      Further, as-of-yet unreproduced processes absolutely have merit. Particularly if the paper appears rigorous in analysis.

      The real question is how we, as a society, let people like you come into an age where you have a voice and a vote on such topics without the basic understanding required for regulating them?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        then it likely wasn't sufficiently rigorous (or alternatively, was fraudulent)

        Or its an honest mistake, or gap in knowledge that resulted in a flawed methodology. We often can't directly measure the thing we are interested. Example I can measure the fuel flow rate into the carburetors on my car, and I can measure the air going in via the MAF, naively I might think that I should be able to calculate the gross AFR; at least if I make sure the floats are full to start with.

        Now might go and do some experiments with different jets and determine certain size is ideal. Until someone break

        • Or its an honest mistake, or gap in knowledge that resulted in a flawed methodology. We often can't directly measure the thing we are interested. Example I can measure the fuel flow rate into the carburetors on my car, and I can measure the air going in via the MAF, naively I might think that I should be able to calculate the gross AFR; at least if I make sure the floats are full to start with.

          Absolutely- which is a lack of scientific rigor.
          Scientific rigor isn't an attempt at applying the scientific method to ensure unbiased and well-controlled experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results, it is the strict application thereof. It is the strict application thereof
          I don't mean a lack of rigor as an insult, because as all things, that's a spectrum.
          You can make simple mistakes, or you can be negligently non-rigorous.

          In your example, your naivety is the re

          • Or its an honest mistake, or gap in knowledge that resulted in a flawed methodology. We often can't directly measure the thing we are interested. Example I can measure the fuel flow rate into the carburetors on my car, and I can measure the air going in via the MAF, naively I might think that I should be able to calculate the gross AFR; at least if I make sure the floats are full to start with.

            Absolutely- which is a lack of scientific rigor.

            Scientific rigor isn't an attempt at applying the scientific method to ensure unbiased and well-controlled experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results, it is the strict application thereof. It is the strict application thereof

            I don't mean a lack of rigor as an insult, because as all things, that's a spectrum.

            As mentioned, scientific rigor (especially for empirical papers) is almost always a spectrum (and not uni-dimensional) for all but the most trivial problems. Experimental results are often expressed in statistical terms because the underlying processes are stochastic in nature or because the possible factors are too numerous to exhaustively account for.

            For all but the most trivial systems, the input space is very large, so it's not possible to evaluate all possible inputs. That's especially true if inputs

        • Some fields are prone to simply making stuff up. The Sokal Affair made clear how many scholastic journals are negligently reviewed, and how prone some fields such as the "gender studies" fields are to complete fraud. roughly 20 examples are cited in the "grivance stury" papers, including a feminist re-interpreted chapter of Mein Kampf.

          https://areomagazine.com/2018/... [areomagazine.com]

          We're experiencing very real difficulty telling people's real work from complete fraud in the social sciences, th

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Archangel Michael ( 180766 )

      "Trust the science"

      No, challenge everything always. Because there is almost always a non-zero chance it is wrong.

      • Re:Why are single papers even accepted? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by t.reagan ( 7420066 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:46PM (#63699642)

        "Trust the science" usually means "Trust the scientific method/process", not individuals or assertions or some conclusion made at a certain time as "the science".

        "Challenge everything" based on what? What if there is no basis for the challenge other than a human feeling or emotion? If you have an alternative, then you better be able to back it up with rigorous reproducible scientific experiments rather than just "I don't feel like that is true, look at me challenging everything!". The scientific method is all we've got.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Archangel Michael ( 180766 )

          Compare the following: You can challenge everything (including any additional challenges) vs you cannot challenge everything, especially the "science truths" currently held.

          Based on nothing is a challenge worth challenging itself. I'd rather have flat earthers that I can challenge than some authoritarian telling me I cannot challenge the "science" because it is "settled". In fact, claiming science is settled is not science at all. Newtonian Physics was once "settled" and it was a good approximation for a wh

          • Re:Why are single papers even accepted? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by t.reagan ( 7420066 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @03:27PM (#63699848)

            If you want to challenge something you can't just sit back and feel it or assert it, you have to prove that what you believe is right, or something else is wrong. It requires work. Einstein did work. He used the scientific method, he didn't just assert that Newton was wrong and yell "but I can challenge things, stop censoring me!". Perhaps you just want to feel things, rather than doing the work?

            Isn't that arrogant?

      • Yes, but if it becomes dogma? Challenge any aspect of climate alarmism, point out the retroactive cooling of past measurements, and you are blaspheming...
      • At the same time, you have to trust some people somewhere or you can't function, and society as a whole can't function.

        And it's episodes like this that illustrate why science (despite numerous issues with the way it's currently done) is still one of the more trustworthy institutions in our society. The guy did sloppy, perhaps negligent, work over 10, 20+ years ago. But due to the transparent nature of scientific research, others were able to come along behind him and call on his bullshit. And then, despite

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      "Do we, as a society, take action based on papers that have not been independently reproduced/verified/replicated? Please tell me we're not that st nevermind, forget it"

      Yes, "we" do. All the time. And "we, as a society" do not control the scientific method or dictate the rigor of private industry.

      "If a paper describes a process that has *not* been yet reproduced, it holds exactly zero merit."

      FALSE. It may hold "zero merit" to you, as a layman.

      "The whole idea of scientific rigor relies on reproducibility.

    • No offense, but - what?? People write papers proposing something and showing their evidence for it. Others read the paper, try to reproduce the effect, they write a paper with their results. By definition, no one can "reproduce" anything until they know about it. Your notion that papers should only be written once it is a "established fact" completely misunderstands the publication process and intent.

      Many papers have been written that had either no experimental evidence, or only had e

    • Uhm... you have to start somewhere ... and yes... sometimes fundamental knowledge is derived from a single paper. More precisely one catchy phrase buried in 5 pages of text explaining it is more complicated than that and needs further study

    • If a paper describes a process that has *not* been yet reproduced, it holds exactly zero merit.

      Are you suggesting we literally have the research output of humanity on account of a few odd cases of fraud? Who do you think will pay to do everything twice?

  • Science is self-correcting (Score:3)

    by BishopBerkeley ( 734647 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:12PM (#63699530) Journal
    The process is slow, but it happens, and it's exceptions like this that prove the rule: the refereeing process works, eventually.

    Now, to shut RFK Jr. up.

    Yes, I am giddy with schadenfreude.

    • Re:Science is self-correcting (Score:4, Insightful)

      by e065c8515d206cb0e190 ( 1785896 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @01:18PM (#63699556)

      Exactly. That's why "I am science" or "trust the science" utterances were absolutely fucking retarded. Science is a process, a never ending iterative endeavor to further human knowledge, and yes it has setbacks.

      Also, I left academia a long time ago, but my understanding is the incentives to publish are high, and the incentives to (try to) reproduce are low. Meaning this kind of issue is bound to happen.

      • The actual reproduction part happens all the time, except it is done by undergrads and grad students as a jumping board to other research. And the fact one of them canâ(TM)t reproduce something is due to many factors, but time and experience are a big one, even then if you find an error in methodology or outright fraud youâ(TM)d need a mentor willing to challenge another established scientist.

        I personally think software like Adobe Photoshop and closed source scientific software should be outright

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

        Saying "trust the science is retarded"' just leads to a bunch of chucklefucks who have no idea about anything "debating" global warming because it disagrees with their politics. That and taking horse pills and blowing out their guts from a massive overdoses of anti parasitic medicine to treat a virus.

        So science can be challenged, but no you do not have the evidence or training to challenge basic results.

        • Distrust is the natural answer to abuse of authority, perceived or real. The political environment ensures it happens, whether you like it or not. Now you have two choices: a) call people idiots and fight them in the political arena b) restore the trust in institutions, depoliticize decisions and try to encourage nuanced opinions. a) is what most people do (including you, if I judge by the content of your message, no offense meant). b) is in my opinion the best long term solution.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *

      > Now, to shut RFK Jr. up.

      Science isn't self-correcting under censorship.

      That's why we just found out yeaterday that NIH scientists were convinced that nCov-19 was engineered at WIV via GoF funding.

      Those scientists were censored and millions died for it.

      And, yes, Bobby K should be subject to rigorous debate.

      • Whether it was engineered or not is completely irrelevant to the result. Natural disease or human modified, once it was in the wild it was out of anyone's control. I am sure some NIH scientists believed that and that others did not. The evidence is contradictory, and the Chinese have no interest in resolving the question. It is not censorship, if an organization does not publish its internal disputes. There may have been political reasons for the opinion expressed, but in the end the source is irreleva
      • What you say is 100% bullshit. I presume you are talking about this: https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org] Just because a bunch of scientifically illiterate republicans say there was a coverup, it doesnâ(TM)t mean there was a coverup. It means they are scientifically illiterate. The genetic sequence of Covid-19 is what it is, and it does not look synthetic. Any conspiracy theorist can download the sequence and make his or her case. But they donâ(TM)t. The lab theory is 100% bullshit and not supported

        • Theory != Hypothesis

          Wilful engineering of virus != Accidental leak of non-engineered virus

          I have no idea where the truth is (how could I?). But as soon as someone decides something should not be investigated, it's suspicious. Remember, it's the books they (the ominous they) want to ban that you should read first. Regardless of political sympathies.

          • That is the stupidest criterion ever for reading a book. Republicans are NOT investigating. They are intimidating scientists. Again, slogans have no effect on the sad truth that there is no evidence. Again, anyone who thinks that the virus was manufactured is welcome to download the genetic sequence and to make their case. Pleading ignorance doesnâ(TM)t make you right. It makes you ignorant.
            • I dont think you bothered to try to understand my post. It's ok, worse things have happened.
              • I answered you very directly. Again, there is NO suppression of investigation. Again, NOBODY outside China is suppressing investigation. The point is that there is only so much evidence we can gather without Chinaâ(TM)s collaboration. (China is dissembling not just because they are evil, but because the pandemic makes them look really stupid, and thatâ(TM)s very bad for the CCP.) Your entire premise that investigation is being suppresses is WRONG. Just because republicans arenâ(TM)t getting
                • Nate Silver wrote a short recap of some of the things that have been going wrong. TLDR: some scientists lied, politicians piled in, platforms (big tech but also scientific papers) suppressed speech. It's not just about the Chinese witholding information, although that's clearly happening as well.
                  • Link please. This is another example of attaching lies to a famous name. Science has not been censored. That claim is complete bullshit.
                    • Silver is in way over his head on this count. He doesn't understand the science. The scientists defended their stance before the House, and nobody on that committee or Silver understand the subtleties of the science. Their findings in the paper have not been disproven. Whatever doubts people may have about those findings, no competing or more compelling evidence has yet been put forth. Silver's scientific illiteracy is making him the victim of hate mongers. The GOP has no interest in the truth. They want to

                    • There's this misconception that one needs to be a virologist to evaluate the quality of the scientific process (not conclusion, but process) or even the truthfulness of actors. This has nothing to do with being Ds or Rs, I'll happily take a stab at both. And you're right, the people asking questions at hearings are not experts. How could they be? They still do a decent job at asking questions, and the audience can at least judge whether the witnesses are seemingly candid or deceitful. Given the discrepancie

                    • Sigh. I read the paper in question when it came out. I have it bookmarked. Silver has clearly neither read it nor understood it. The republicans on the committee have no interest in the truth or progress. They want to justify their lies. Itâ(TM)s true that a scientific degree is not required, but an understanding of science is required, and Silver lacks such an understanding because his argument is NOT about the science, but the rumor mill around the science. He canâ(TM)t negotiate that rumor mill
                    • Sigh. We don't disagree. Still, you're missing my point. Moving on.
                    • No, Iâ(TM)m not. Itâ(TM)s wrong to say that journalists on both sides misrepresented facts. The liberal media erred on occasion. The right wing media engaged in a propaganda campaign. Conservative media lied deliberately and frequently. The point that youâ(TM)re missing is that the confusion surrounding the pandemic is artificial. It is fake. It exists only in the minds of the deceived. There has been clarity in the scientific community from the start. You are categorically wrong that â
                    • This is where we disagree. The NYT sells your "OMG the Reps are stupid" outrage in the same way that Fox sells you "OMG the Dems are stupid" outrage. They lie in different ways (because personality traits for ppl on the left are different for the right) but they lie just the same, and no side is better than the other.
                    • No, the NYT does not do that. The NYT certainly has never spread Russian propaganda as Fox does daily. Hell, Fox coughed up $900 million to Dominion for the lies Fox broadcast. The NYT has never ever been that stupid.

                      This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. You're completely blind to reality. The "both sides are bad" refrain is a characteristic of closet racists. If you don't know which side is bad, then everybody else knows what you are.
                    • You're right about what Fox News lied about. You're right that the NYT hasn't lied about those things specifically. It doesn't mean it hasn't lied about other things like let's stay the stupid laptop of Hunter Biden, I'm picking this example because it's a non-expert topic and the NYT lie a well established fact. And disclaimer: my household pays for a NYT sub, not for Fox. And no, I don't know which side is bad. Non nuanced opinions don't lead one very far in life, I tend to avoid being categorical.
                    • Take the last 4 or 5 WH press secretaries (both administration). A bunch of them (bar one?) have gone to the media. They all lied through their teeth from the podium for 7 years (not on everything obviously, but regularly). Now they're serving you what you need to think depending on whether you affiliate with D or R.
                    • We're not talking about WH press secretaries. We're talking about media. If you are putting NYT on the same footing as Fox, then you are presenting yourself as the damn fool you are.
                    • WH press secretaries ended up in the media. Not at the NYT, you're right, but in general in the media. I'm not putting them on the same footing. I'm saying the both lie, in different ways. I also didn't insult you.
                    • Wrong again. They do not both lie. Proof is that Fox had do pay $800 million in damages (had to check the amount), and NYT did not. No news source ever pays such outrageous amounts. Conservative media on the whole is a massive fraud.

                      Your insistence on repeating these lies and absurdities is insulting. The fact that you expect me or anyone with half a brain to indulge your lies is incredibly insulting.

                      And, I'm not insulting you. You need to know how stupid you sound. I respect you enough to tell you the tr

      • Absolutely. That's why:

        • Any official knowingly using external systems to avoid FOIA must be fired.
        • Any official censoring others must be fired.
        • Any official maligning some areas of research must be fired. There is no area that should be off limits. Even proving uselessness (Ivremectin, Hydroxychloroquine) is useful.
        • Any official knowingly omitting information in a testimony must be fired.

        Shame on Trump and Biden for politicizing Covid. Shame on Ds and Rs. Shame on unelected officials who answer to nobody.

        • Hmm... If you believe anything you say, you would not be blaming Ds.
          • Ds make as many mistakes as Rs. The mistakes are of a different kind, but having a D affixed to one's name doesn't automatically translate into having sound ideas or enacting sounds policies. Don't get me wrong, there are few good Ds and Rs out there, that I would happily vote for, but they're few and far between.
      • https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        -

        RFK Jr. must be held to account for all the dead children. He is making millions on the bodies of dead children.

        Infectious disease kills. Vaccines reduce that number. Ideally we humans improve our understanding over time to get that number to 0

        But more deaths is objectively worse than less deaths.

      • Re:Science is self-correcting (Score:5, Insightful)

        by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @04:19PM (#63699988)

        > Now, to shut RFK Jr. up.

        Science isn't self-correcting under censorship.

        Sure, I can agree with that.

        That's why we just found out yeaterday that NIH scientists were convinced that nCov-19 was engineered at WIV via GoF funding.

        Those scientists were censored

        And now I haven't the foggiest idea WTF you're talking about.

        I mean someone else dug up an article about two NIH scientists changing their minds, and Republicans inventing a censorship conspiracy that the scientists themselves have repeatedly shot down.

        and millions died for it.

        Well if you're going to make up a conspiracy without evidence you might as well make up consequences without evidence while you're at it.

        And, yes, Bobby K should be subject to rigorous debate.

        Ok, but first I insist that my theory that Mars is actually a discarded beach balloon make by giant space aliens also be subject to rigorous debate.

        Sometimes ideas, like that GOP censorship conspiracy, are stupid at a glance and unless someone can bring a smidgen of real evidence to the table they deserve to be treated as such.

        • > Now, to shut RFK Jr. up.

          Science isn't self-correcting under censorship.

          Sure, I can agree with that.

          That's why we just found out yeaterday that NIH scientists were convinced that nCov-19 was engineered at WIV via GoF funding.

          Those scientists were censored

          And now I haven't the foggiest idea WTF you're talking about.

          I mean someone else dug up an article about two NIH scientists changing their minds, and Republicans inventing a censorship conspiracy that the scientists themselves have repeatedly shot down.

          and millions died for it.

          Well if you're going to make up a conspiracy without evidence you might as well make up consequences without evidence while you're at it.

          And, yes, Bobby K should be subject to rigorous debate.

          Ok, but first I insist that my theory that Mars is actually a discarded beach balloon make by giant space aliens also be subject to rigorous debate.

          Sometimes ideas, like that GOP censorship conspiracy, are stupid at a glance and unless someone can bring a smidgen of real evidence to the table they deserve to be treated as such.

          [url=https://www.hasacon.com/tin-tuc/tong-quan-ve-mo-hinh-nha-khung-thep-1-tang-hien-nay]nhà khung thép 1 tng[/url] nhà khung thép 1 tng [hasacon.com]

          • > Now, to shut RFK Jr. up.

            Science isn't self-correcting under censorship.

            Sure, I can agree with that.

            That's why we just found out yeaterday that NIH scientists were convinced that nCov-19 was engineered at WIV via GoF funding.

            Those scientists were censored

            And now I haven't the foggiest idea WTF you're talking about.

            I mean someone else dug up an article about two NIH scientists changing their minds, and Republicans inventing a censorship conspiracy that the scientists themselves have repeatedly shot down.

            and millions died for it.

            Well if you're going to make up a conspiracy without evidence you might as well make up consequences without evidence while you're at it.

            And, yes, Bobby K should be subject to rigorous debate.

            Ok, but first I insist that my theory that Mars is actually a discarded beach balloon make by giant space aliens also be subject to rigorous debate.

            Sometimes ideas, like that GOP censorship conspiracy, are stupid at a glance and unless someone can bring a smidgen of real evidence to the table they deserve to be treated as such.

            [url=https://www.hasacon.com/tin-tuc/tong-quan-ve-mo-hinh-nha-khung-thep-1-tang-hien-nay]nhà khung thép 1 tng[/url] nhà khung thép 1 tng [hasacon.com]

            xây dng nhà xng [hasacon.com] thi công nhà thép tin ch [hasacon.com]

      • Those scientists were censored and millions died for it.

        Knowing where the virus came from will have saved precisely zero lives. No one died as a result of any theory in any direction as to the source of the virus you can't even properly name.

        No seriously we know nCov-19 was engineered. It was developed by AstraZenica not WIV, and its full name is "ChAdOx1 nCoV-19". If you want to talk about a virus bullshit at least get the frigging name of the virus right. SARS-COV-2 originally called 2019-nCov

  • Nah, he falsified data. Errors happen and that's what the scientific method with peer review takes care of. But falsifying? Yeah, bye bye.

  • Was getting caught. Otherwise, the skill of lying convincingly and impressing your superiors is the essential skill needed for being a University President.

  • Multiple instances of questionable research from a single person are troubling. But it's not Stanford's job to identify and reject bad research. How did a paper that "had 'multiple problems' and 'fell below customary standards of scientific rigor and process'" make it through peer review?

    There is not reason for companies to bother doing highly rigorous work and analysis if the journals will accept low quality submissions.

  • ...when an AI version will check ALL the papers of ALL the scientists and professors and find out that 90% of them are worthless.

  • thanks for this post because of useful information. By the way, you can refer lots of our artices: Giáo dc stem UTS [utschool.edu.vn] - Chng trình giáo dc ph thông UTS [utschool.edu.vn]

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close