The revolution in French science has begun, and its target is the corrupt elite who betrayed against basic principles of research integrity and conspired to protect one of their own, the CNRS chief biologist Catherine Jessus. French scientists seem to finally have enough of watching fraudsters eat cake and now storm the Bastille.

Much of evidence of data manipulation in papers from Jessus’ lab was originally forwarded to me by my readers and reported on my site, I then posted it also on PubPeer. Under mounting pressure from her peers, Jessus started to correct some of her papers, and eventually her employer CNRS, Europe-largest network of research institutes, decided to switch to attack mode of defence. Sorbonne University in Paris, where Jessus holds a professorship, delivered an outrageous whitewashing report about Jessus’s data manipulations, which were either declared to be minor errors, or denied outright, or even declared to be actually good scientific practice, all despite absence of original data. The authors of that opus hid their identity, but one was eventually exposed by my sources: Francis-André Wollman, an elite CNRS and Sorbonne biologist. I was personally accused of libellous slander in a CNRS press release, which also announced to persecute those raising misconduct allegations, while urging French researchers to “collective vigilance” against such traitors. CNRS new president Antoine Petit, whose predecessor Anne Peyroche was deposed after my reporting about data manipulations in her own papers, then announced to smoke out anonymous PubPeer commenters using IT tools of deep surveillance.

Yesterday, an Open Letter has been published on the website Sauvons l’Université ! , authored by around 10 unnamed French biologists. It plucks apart the Sorbonne report of Jessus papers and declares:

“We, geneticists, biochemists, cell and molecular biologists, have read this report, have analysed, criticised it point by point and can conclude that all the arguments of the Inquiry Commission are against all common rules of good scientific practice and of the interpretation of results, which form the basis of research integrity. Worse, and that is the reason that led us to react (see our open letter), it encourages image manipulations which are nevertheless recognized as fabrications and falsifications of results”.


The full version of the Open Letter, which was finalised already on 18 April 2018, was linked under the Sauvons l’Université ! article from yesterday. It meticulously explains to biology outsiders like President Petit what a western blot is, what the correct presentation of western blot results is, followed by what is actually data manipulation and what is fraud. It goes on to analyse one by one the issues in 11 individual Jessus papers as posted on PubPeer, finds virtually all of them to be evidence of research fraud, while denouncing the whitewashing findings of the commission, which the authors declare to be uttelry incompetent in biology. That will sure hurt the pride of cell biology professor and EMBO member Wollman, who, being a pompous fluffed-up chicken, is still afraid to admit his (by now well established) key role in having penned such a disastrous report.

Also the authors of the counter-report prefer to remain anonymous, which is understandable given the threats and calls for denunciation of traitors, publicly issued towards them by Petit and CNRS. This is the full title of the Open Letter:

Lettre ouverte d’un groupe d’experts anonyme concernant le rapport de la commission anonyme ayant enquêté sur les publications dont Mme Jessus est co-auteur

But the title of the pdf document is simply: rapportfraude.pdf. Its authors name the disastrous Jessus investigation by CNRS and Sorbonne University as the reason for having written the Open Letter:

The conclusions of this report, which at first glance seem to absolve Ms. Jessus and her co-authors of all scientific fraud, are diametrically opposed, as will be seen below, with the findings of the detailed article-by-article analysis of the same report.
Indeed, the
inquiry commission finds and admits almost all the manipulations images highlighted on PubPeer. On the other hand, it does not admit that these image manipulations can be fraudulent and justifies them one by one, using
arguments that could mislead by appearing fair and objective to non-specialists.

However, for biology specialists using the same techniques, the entire Inquiry Committee is not only confused, but also scientifically aberrant. The levels of confusion and aberration are such that they reveal the obvious incompetence of this commission of “experts” and discredit its from giving a serious opinion.
The incompetence of the Commission has, in the context of this investigation, consequences even more serious than its own discredit or that of the institutions for which it has done its work. The Commission recommends continuing to do this type of image manipulation. Now this type of manipulation of images, as we explain below, can not be accepted in any case, during a meeting in a laboratory, or as part of a presentation at a congress or as a
report in a peer-reviewed journal, such as those the community of biology researchers publishes in.

In this open letter, after a preamble for non-specialists in Biology, our group of experts, consisting of geneticists, biochemists, molecular and cellular biologists, engaged in critical and scientific reasoning on each of the 21 figures resulting in 20 conclusions diametrically opposed to those of the commission of inquiry”.

In the press release at Sauvons l’Université ! the anonymous biologists highlight the main problem, which is not Jessus herself, but the rotten structures of research integrity at the very top of French science. They accuse CNRS and Sorbonne University of “concealment of fraud”, despite having all the tools in place to ensure adherence to good scientific practice. They describe CNRS’ own ethics committee COMETS as corrupted:

“Anne Peyroche was indeed a member of COMETS, before her appointment on 24 October 2017 to the Presidency of the CNRS and her interim advance replacement by Antoine Petit on 18 January following the alleged fraud revealed by PubPeer. Would she have helped to conceal, as a member of the COMETS and then president of CNRS, the fraud carried out in the lab of Catherine Jessus, in order to downplay the same thing conducted in her own lab? Is fraud so widespread that two people at the head of CNRS are implicated? Or is it fraud a means of access to positions of responsibility at the CNRS?”

As I heard, that cartoon Stalinist Jessus was in the process of organising a purge at CNRS. No executions yet, just sackings and demotions of traitors. The danger and fear are very real, and even those in highest positions at CNRS cannot feel safe from Jessus’ revenge. So far, she enjoys the full support from the CNRS president.

Petit is now well advised to stop threatening the scientific community and drop his misguided support of dishonest researchers at CNRS. Otherwise he will be deposed just like Peyroche was. The revolution is on its way.

Apparently, CNRS President Petit demands here assurance from France President Emmanuel Macron and French Army generals that any resistance to his and Jessus’ doctrine of research integrity will be mercilessly extinguished.

Below I have now Google-translated and illustrated the French text of the conclusions in this counter-report.

5 Conclusion

With the exception of comments and conclusions on the two figures of paper 9, all the arguments and conclusions of the commission leave us all very perplexed as to the rigour and professionalism with which it conducted its investigation.

All allegations of PubPeer on any Western blot image manipulations or autoradiographies, the work of such an inquiry commission must be to compare the original Western blots and autoradiographies with the incriminated published figures.

Therefore work must begin with the search for the original documents in the archives of the laboratory. However, it seems that the Commission has merely, as it states in the conclusions of its report ( “The commission asked Mrs. Jessus, to provide original documents used in the assembly of the incriminated figures”) put a request to Mrs. Jessus, who then is said to have provided less than two-thirds, since the commission says at least 7 original documents (of 21) have not been found. At the same time, the national code of ethics of the research practice clearly states that “All raw data (belonging to the institution) and analysis of results must be retained to allow verification”. It is strange that an commission of inquiry into the scientific integrity would make no comment on the absence of such a large number of original documents and does not search for it itself, in the various lab books in laboratories of the authors of incriminated papers.

In any event, the investigating committee takes note of and agrees with almost all the image manipulations reported by PubPeer, namely a non-homogeneous attenuation of background noise (article 8 figure 4D) and 18 image re-uses (of cut-and-paste type) in articles 1 to 8 and 10 to 11.

That gel band in a Jessus paper was not just duplicated. President Petit explains what happened.

The Committee recognises that non-uniform attenuation of background noise is “not consistent with good publication practices”, however it does not admit that 18 instances of  images reuse can be intentionally fraudulent. As these 18 images falsifications were characterized by the commission, it used a confused and scientifically absurd argumentation, trying to justify the majority of them, after they have been classified into three distinct categories:

– classified as first category, reuse (or duplication) of control samples images in several figures (sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7). The commission says such reuses are “legitimate” and claims that “there erroneous reuse was not intended” or that “the control conditions of each experiment were reproduced.” It explains that it is “justified to reuse controls in several figures when these are from the same samples” and goes on to even mention three more figures with images of reused control samples, than reported on PubPeer (in section 5).

However, the Committee obviously confuses reuse of control samples and copy / paste of images of control samples , which is not at all the same thing! In the first case, reuse is scientifically correct, it is to rerun the control samples while performing an additional Western blot with other samples from the same experiment. In the latter case (which is the case of incriminated articles), it is scientifically not correct. Indeed, the control samples were not subjected to a second Western blot, only their images were recovered and pasted with the images of other samples in the experiment, making the resulting figures uninterpretable! This confusion of the Commission of Inquiry, which made it  wrongly and re-iteratively conclude  “that there is neither scientific misconduct or error, there is no doubt of  the scientific message of the papers”, highlights its total incompetence.

cas 1-3
“Legitimate” assembly of western blot parts, from the Rapportfraude.pdf

– classified in the second category of image manipulations are not related control samples and of pasting (or inserting) parts removed from the same blot membrane (papers 8 [Figure S4] and 11) or different blot membranes  (papers 1, 6 [Figure 5C] and 11).

We have explained many times (see Figure 5 of the preamble and our comments on papers 1, 6 and 11) that the latter type of assembly (splicing of gels or different membranes) is scientifically not rigorous since the samples which images are artificially moved have not been subject to the same western blotting or autoradiography, they are not comparable, which makes them uninterpretable figures. The commission should have recognised such handling as intentionally fraudulent, instead of justifying it.

On the other hand the assembly of distant parts of the same gel (or a single membrane) is scientifically acceptable (see preamble page 9). However, when one carefully analyses the organization and the noise pattern of the S4 section 8 and S1B and S2B of paper 11, those are not distant parts of a same membrane being assembled (n◦3 case of  assembly in the preamble), but assembly of pieces of different membranes (n◦6 case of assembly in the preamble). It is very clearly made to give the illusion that it is the same membrane, which is completely fraudulent.

Again, and despite the observation of certain originals, the commission was not able to distinguish between ‘legitimate’ assemblies and assemblies interpretable scientifically as intentional fraudulent manipulation, leading to believe that samples of the same figure were all subjected to the same western blot or even autoradiography.

cas 4-6
Fraudulent assembly of western blot panels, from the Rapportfraude.pdf

– classified into the third category are reuses (or duplication) images of samples which are not controls and which are found twice in a single panel (as part of a Western-blot of Figure – Figures 3 and 5B of the article 3, figures 6 and 7 of the paper) or reuse of control samples images that are found in two different panels (paper 10).

While it is exactly the same type of copy / paste of fraudulent images as in previous cases, the Committee recognises that this time they are errors. However, by fallaciously reasoning that a panel can be made from different assembly parts (as is it was a kind of a puzzle), the commission downplays those errors by passing them as unintentional errors, unfortunate blunders that could have led the authors to use wrong parts when assembling the panel! But here the error is not to have mistaken a piece during assembly, but to perform such assemblies in the first place! In addition, the Committee points out that these errors were corrected. However, to date only 4B of paper 10 is the subject of a corrigendum published by J. Cell Science. One wonders what did the commission try to achieve by performing such a ranking of the 18 image manipulation in three categories? Clearly to try to exonerate 13 of them and minimize the fraudulent intent of the other 5.

This attempt is vain, as we have shown, article by article, figure after figure, the 18 images reuse are all forgeries, to make believe that the samples of the same panel underwent the same Western blot for some, or to hide an original result for others.

Since the Commission refers to this repeatedly in its analysis, it should be noted that the vast majority of peer reviewed journals in Biology publish for several years in the instructions for authors a paragraph on which image manipulation is acceptable or which is not for publication (for review see [Rossner and Yamada, 2004] and Annex I). This paragraph was non-existent in the 1990s, appeared in the last fifteen years and has become increasingly detailed in order to try to reduce cases of fraud identified by publishers.

However the advice recommended in such paragraph is not to become a law, with no retroactive effect, to determine what is good or bad scientific practice, since good or bad scientific practices are independent of the year of publication of this paragraph in journals. Good or bad practices are in fact determined by the limits of interpretation of each technique and each experiment as explained in the preamble. Realising, analysing and rigorously presenting every experiment within these limits is a good practice (i.e., for the technique of Western blotting, all samples to be compared must have been subjected from the beginning to the end to the same Western blot), violating those limits demonstrates a lack of rigour and is a poor scientific practice.

Contrary to attempts by the commission to insinuate throughout its analysis, in order to exonerate the perpetrators, is that even if good scientific practice is not specifically formulated in the recommendations of the journals to authors, this does not allow non-compliance with this good practice. Failure of good practice is bad practice no matter when it happens, in 1997 as in 2017!

The argument put forward by the Commission in papers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is particularly disconcerting. For these papers, the commission concludes its analysis by stating that nothing challenges in the scientific messages of the paper. On this occasion, we would like to tell the commission which does not seem to be familiar with the experimental sciences, that a scientific experiment is designed to answer a question and the answer to this question is given by the raw data (or original) of experiment and this alone. For papers 1 to 7, the original documents were precisely not found, or not all have been found. On what basis does the commission declare that the scientific message of the paper is not altered if there is nothing to consult?

On the contrary, the accumulation of fraudulent practices in a laboratory over a period of 20 years, combined with a significant loss of original documents, should seriously alarm the inquiry as to the scientific message given by the articles.

In conclusion, all the comments of the inquiry commission show that it absolutely does not master the techniques used in the papers, that it neglects the fundamental importance of internal controls of each experiment, that it confuses  legitimate panels assembly with illegitimate assembly of subpanels, and finally, it confuses unintentional errors with intentional manipulation meant to deliberately falsify an original result.

All arguments of this commission of inquiry, which are more like an exercise in rhetoric or dishonest advocacy, have nothing to do with scientific arguments. They are irresponsible because they encourage image manipulations. They can in no way be considered either by the institutions or by the journals Developmental Biology, Journal of Cell Science, Development, Molecular Biology of The Cell and Cell Cycle.

More evidence was posted by Elisabeth Bik on PubPeer

Update 18.05.2018. I now got in touch with the anonymous authors of the counter-report. This is their message:

“We are about ten researchers from different universities or institutes. […]

Moreover, this crisis is by far the most serious situation we have ever encountered. We absolutely need the protection of anonymity to continue to communicate freely without pressure and without threats to our careers. This will also ensure that the institutions cannot follow their usual strategy of sueing for defamation and attempting to discredit the whistleblowers. They will be obliged to confront the real problem.

For this reason we have provided only information that can be verified factually. We have not included any unverifiable statements or opinions”.



If you are interested to support my work, you can leave here a small tip of $5. Or several of small tips, just increase the amount as you like. Your generous patronage of my journalism, however small it appears to you, will greatly help me with my legal costs.


36 thoughts on “French Biologists: CNRS-Sorbonne investigators “totally incompetent”, data manipulations in Jessus papers “intentionally fraudulent forgeries”

    1. I make an appeal that more governments from other countries including Portugal follow the French government and allow investigations of present anomalies in research funding and take measures so that original data will be always available promoting
      fair public discussions of the same and allowing as well fair access to funding


  1. Very good. I think that on balance, more than 50% of the credit for this particular scandal at CNRS probably goes to our reporter. Definitely it’s one of the big hitter stories, although I can’t really relate to the science so it’s not as enjoyable for me personally. The Tiwari one was really fun because even though I do get letters of invitation for his cruise conference, I can’t really relate to the science as well, but at least the scamminess and the absolute brazen shamelessness part I understood.

    Here it’s a bit different. It feels like it was all kept hushed up and proper at the higher levels, so the eminent members of science and some bystanders, who are like people I run into in legit conferences, are going to get hammered (if this goes anywhere). Plus, I know some folks who work at CNRS (albeit in chemistry) so it’s not as fun… but potentially more paradigm shattering.

    Well, I would have a cup of coffee to celebrate this story, but I already had too many today and I need to fall asleep sometime. You’re not worried that with all this exposure of shaky science, the public is going to think that we are just a bunch of charlatans just like all the other money leaches who make up fake reasons for why they need a bigger slice of the pie with their big political lobbies, like the Pharma industry, or the Military/Industrial complex, and we’re going to get our funding cut? 😛 Well, I’m not worried because my contract is at least for four more years. Plus I think I’d survive in those ‘alternative careers’ better than you suckers. So, go Leonid Schneider! Go…..!


  2. This is just incredible. Le Monde journalist David Larousserie blogs on responses of Wollman and French science elite on Jessus affair and the counter-report.
    English translation:

    Justify the unjustifiable
    “Okay, okay, those are breaches of scientific integrity, but it does not affect the integrity of authors” . Sic.
    “No one is all white in research” . Ouch, ouch, ouch … “Basically everyone is a bit the same in the labs.” Oh really ?
    “It’s like getting a correct result by making false reasoning. There’s no loss of life” . Indeed.
    “It’s still not the case Cahuzac”
    “I fear that with these stories of integrity, we add our texts and procedures and that it bothers us in our work”. […]
    Conflicts of interests (for information, the report’s author is a member of the CNRS and his lab is co-supervised with Sorbonne University).
    “I do not see where the conflict of interest, which is a rather Anglo-Saxon concept. It’s not even in our French manners. You have to trust the experts. ”
    And an off-topic, “If there are people to challenge the investigative work of these bodies, often anonymously and by rumours, to discredit the CNRS through the person of Catherine, it would probably be good to be interested in these people and ask them about the issue of conflict of interest. “


  3. I am glad that journalists of the NYT and Le Monde start to understand how rotten modern science is. The NYT article on Croce was also more about nobody being surprised and upset, than about what Croce actually did.
    I hope that from those big journals you may get some help for your legal troubles. Despite living in an age where everything is supposedly open, your blog is one of the very few places where criticism is loud enough to be heard.


  4. French academia now entered the next stage of Stalinism: purges. An article appeared, where (currently) 149 signatories, all French academics, mostly CNRS research group leaders and university professors, express their support for Jessus and her anonymous investigators, while calling for persecution of the 10 anonymous authors of the counter-report, exactly because those chose anonymity. The schizophrenic argument actually makes sense if you apply Soviet dialectic.
    My personal prediction is: CNRS and French academia in general will now use this Open Letter as a test of loyalty. Those refusing to sign it will be sacked, banished or punished otherwise.
    Maybe the current events are inspired by Stalin’s favourite biologist Trofim Lyssenko, and how Soviet biology was purged of enemies of the people, ie, those who refused to accept ideologically imposed pseudoscience.
    President Petit started something truly horrible by expressing his support for research misconduct from day one.


    1. The Pravda-like “Ethique Scientifique, Ethique Journalistique” Open Letter by French academic Stalinists now includes former CNRS president Alain Fuchs, a scientist with his own shady PubPeer-record (Guido Kroemer) and even PubPeer themselves. Both PubPeer founders Brendon Stell and Boris Barbour are listed as signatories, though Barbour denies signing and accuses me of having framed him.

      Meanwhile, CNRS President Antoine Petit and Sorbonne University president Jean Chambaz have issued their own statement of support: of Jessus, her anonymous investigators (Chicken of Dishonour Legion Wollman still in hiding) and the aforementioned Stalinist turd of an Open Letter, while lashing out at the 10 anonymous authors of counter report.
      It is a private press release, available only to subscribers of AEF and not for publication. Welcome to France. I was forwarded the full text. Here it is, abridged.

      Publications by Catherine Jessus: CNRS and Sorbonne University refute accusations of “anonymous experts”
      Antoine Petit, president of the CNRS, and Jean Chambaz, president of Sorbonne University.

      An open letter from an “anonymous group of experts”, published on May 16, 2018 on the Sauvons l’université website, questions the conclusions of the inquiry commission of CNRS and Sorbonne University which has concluded, in February 2018, on the absence of scientific misconduct in publications co-authored by Catherine Jessus, director of INSB-CNRS. This 45-page open letter focuses on showing the “incompetence” of the commission of inquiry and qualifies its report as “dishonest plea”. Antoine Petit, president of the CNRS, and Jean Chambaz, president of Sorbonne University, “refute the accusations” of this anonymous letter in a joint declaration that AEF received on May 28th. In addition, another open letter, signed to date by nearly 180 researchers, denounces this “campaign that involves scientists whose expertise is widely recognized.” […]
      […] “Sorbonne University and the CNRS refute the accusations of the recent anonymous open letter published on the site Sauvons l’université,” said Antoine Petit, president of the CNRS, and Jean Chambaz, president of Sorbonne University, in a “joint statement” that AEF received on May 28th. The two institutions “do not accept this anonymous questioning of the integrity of the members of the commission set up to deal with the suspicions of scientific misconduct against Catherine Jessus and her coauthors,” the presidents continue. “Sorbonne University and the CNRS vouch for the scientific reputation of the experts chosen and the absence of any conflict of interest.They assume the choice of not having disclosed their identities, precisely to protect them from this type of attacks”.
      While declaring to be “deeply attached to the respect and ethics, both in the conduct of research and in its publication, “the research organization and the university” recall their commitment as scientific institutions to treat with the utmost rigour the business of scientific misconduct, by protecting sincere whistle-blowers like researchers and teacher-researchers whose innocence is demonstrated. “The two institutions also stress that” in case of misconduct or proven fraud, [they] take appropriate sanctions, without any complacency ” Antoine Petit and Jean Chambaz “finally call for the greatest collective vigilance regarding the multiplication of false accusations, without any scientific justification, under the guise of pseudonyms, because it complicates the identification of real fraud”.


      1. Antoine Petit apparently wishes to deal with the 10 traitors personally. He told Le Figaro:

        “For his part, the new president of the CNRS, Antoine Petit, “(is) refusing to comment on anonymous charges. Their authors can contact me if they wish. In general, I recall that I discovered on my arrival that the CNRS did not have a permanent tool, clear and shared, to deal with cases of suspicion of scientific fraud. We started a reflection to be able to put in place such a tool very soon”.


  5. Well, it appears that “Leonid Schneider, Former cell biologist” endorsed the petition. It’s puzzling.


  6. The open letter gives the illusion to be about support for Catherine Jessus. However, the real issue is the CNRS report (the “whitewash” report), and the open letter may be initiated to support the authors of that report. Below, I try to summarize how I observe the events:

    Twenty years of work by Catherine Jessus
    (CJ from here)


    This work includes a not so small but also not so large number of bigger and smaller misconducts. Probably deserving of some kind of punishment of one or two people, a few warnings, two or so retractions, and a few corrections. The role of CJ in the misconducts is unclear, and in many cases she is not a lead author. She may be relatively innocent, as suggested by the inconsistent distribution of the misconducts through her many works (but then why does she need this crazy protection?).


    PubPeer and Leonid report the misconducts. Leonid writes an article with the title “Voinnet’s CNRS investigator Catherine Jessus with own data integrity issues”. Direct accusations about CJ’s involvement were not made, but as senior author she automatically shared some (forgivable or not) responsibility.


    CNRS decides to rescue CJ’s reputation.
    However, instead of finding out who was responsible for the misconducts, with strange and incorrect arguments they conclude that there was no serious misconduct. They express a lack of understanding of Western blot science.
    With possibly all or some committee members being aware of the low quality of the report, THE REPORT WAS ANONYMOUS.


    An ANONYMOUS COMMITTEE (hereafter “the rebel group”) writes a definitely intelligent and (in some instances overly) critical assay about the CNRS report. They are not accusing CJ, but they are (righteously) condemning the method and the quality of the CNRS report.


    David Larousserie describes the situation rather accurately in Le Monde. He expresses to be shocked by the inability of the French leading scientists to deal in a normal, integer, and intelligent way with accusations of misconduct. Plus, by how everyone tells him that “a little misconduct” is common in science. He is faced with anonymous reports on either side of the argument. He allegedly CONTACTS A NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS, and they (correctly) explain that the rebel group has the better scientific arguments. He appears to describe how Wollman did not give an accurate portrayal of events to Le Monde.


    A set of (CNRS and other) directors and professors (the “power group”) writes an open letter. The introduction of that letter is weird, and questions the intelligence of those who signed it. It gives the emotional suggestion to be a letter of support for CJ, whereas neither the rebel group nor DL showed a marked interest in the role of CJ. The central issue is not CJ but the CNRS report. The introduction mentions as the MAIN REASON for the letter existence (Google translate:) “FACED WITH MR. LAROUSSERIE’S UNEQUIVOCAL RESUMPTION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF ANONYMOUS PEOPLE WHOSE LEGITIMACY AND POSSIBLE SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS ARE UNKNOWN, RESEARCHERS AND RESEARCH PROFESSORS (IN BOLD TYPE IN THE LIST BELOW) CAME TOGETHER TO MANIFEST THEIR TOTAL DISAPPROVAL OF SUCH METHODS.” This is pretty crazy, as one anonymous group accuses the other group of using anonymity. Furthermore, DL did check the arguments of the rebel group by asking other scientists. The power group fails to argue how the rebel report would be incorrect. The power group also wishes the anonymous (and Leonid’s) questioning of science to stop, which in their power situation is fully understandable (though a bit pathetic). Finally, the power group tries to redefine “independent committee” by stating that if your boss doesn’t hire you, you feel free to say whatever about him/her.


  7. This email, authored by CNRS group leader from Montpellier, Patrick Lemaire was received by many French academics. Lemaire shows his displeasure with the “Ethique Scientifique, Ethique Journalistique” Open Letter, signed by over 400 top French academics, especially its attack on the Le Monde journalist David Larousserie.
    Lemaire is also editorial board member of Development, and denies that his journal agreed to the corrections of Jessus papers as the CNRS/Sorbonne report claims.
    I publish the original.

    Cher.e.s collègues,

    j’ai écrit ce texte car je suis très gêné par la pétition
    ( initiée par plusieurs scientifiques de renom (dont
    notamment Bruno Chaudret, président du CS du CNRS), probablement pour
    apporter un soutien moral à Catherine Jessus dans l’épreuve qu’elle
    traverse. Certain.e.s d’entre vous l’ont peut être déjà signée.

    Outre le fait que le ton de ce texte me semble particulièrement
    inapproprié (et sans nul doute moins nuancé que celui de D. Larousserie
    qu’il attaque frontalement), et que cibler un journaliste qui fait
    partie de ceux qui traite la science avec le plus de soin est
    particulièrement déplacé, le contenu de ce texte est de nature à faire
    beaucoup plus de mal que de bien.

    Parce que je suis membre du bureau éditorial de Development, et que ce
    journal est impliqué, j’ai longuement épluché le premier rapport
    officiel (et malheureusement anonyme…) et la contre expertise tout
    aussi anonyme. Le premier rapport d’évaluation est pour le moins bâclé
    et émaillé de trop nombreuses approximations (pas capables de
    reconnaitre une RT-PCR…) voire d’omissions embarrassantes (il n’est
    nulle part mentionné dans l’article Karaiskou et al dans Development, si
    les expériences ont été répétées, et le rapport d’expertise ne mentionne
    en rien qu’ils ont cherché à trouver et analyser les répétitions des
    expériences incriminées). Une des affirmations les plus problématiques
    de ce rapport, et reprise par le texte de la pétition, est que des
    corrections dans certains journaux (Development, Journal of Cell
    Science) ont été acceptées. Elle ne le sont en fait toujours pas, plus
    de 3 mois après la publication du rapport.

    La piètre qualité et l’anonymat du premier rapport n’excuse pas le
    pinaillage sans doute exagéré de la contre expertise, mais un travail
    plus sérieux, et mieux cadré méthodologiquement, aurait sans doute
    permis d’éviter le second rapport. Le vrai problème n’est donc pas ce
    second rapport, aussi discutable qu’il soit, ni l’article de
    Larousserie, qui ne fait que relever l’évidence, mais bien ce que cet
    article dénonce : notre communauté est désemparée face aux problèmes
    d’intégrité scientifique.

    J’ai peur que le texte de la pétition, en minimisant voire en refusant
    toute discussion sur la faiblesse du premier rapport officiel, et en
    jetant l’opprobre d’une manière extrèmement violente (“nauséabond”) sur
    un des meilleurs (et un des seuls…) journalistes scientifiques de la
    presse écrite, qui n’a fait que son métier, ne soit interprété comme une
    tentative de détournement voire d’étouffement de cette affaire par la
    communauté scientifique.

    J’apprécie énormément le travail de Catherine à l’INSB et je regrette
    profondément que ce soit elle, du fait de sa position et de l’exposition
    qui va avec, qui paie les pots cassés pour des méthodes discutables que
    nous appliquions tous à des degrés divers à cette époque. J’ai
    soigneusement épluché ce qui lui est reproché dans les articles dont
    elle est auteur pour correspondance (je n’ai pas regardé les autres). Je
    ne pense pas que ce qui a été fait dans ces articles, qui extraient des
    messages principalement qualitatifs (la bande est là ou pas), aille au
    delà de négligences, certes coupables, mais qui ne remettent pas en
    cause le message scientifique des articles. Mais bâcler un rapport
    d’expertise, puis reprendre sur un ton de vierge effarouché et sans
    réflexion des arguments dudit rapport pour écrire une pétition au ton
    lui réellement nauséabond, est un type de défense qui risque de couler
    bien malgré elle celle qu’il veut protéger.

    Un texte qui, à partir du cas de Catherine Jessus, aurait pris de la
    hauteur en admettant que le premier rapport était problématique (ce dont
    je ne peux imaginer que Catherine puisse être rendue fautive) et
    insistant sur la nécessité de mettre en place au plus vite un code de
    conduite des organismes et universités et des méthodes appropriées pour
    traiter les suspicions de méconduite scientifique avec toute la
    transparence requise aurait eu ma signature. Mais si le texte proposé
    atteint un nombre important de signatures et si David Larousserie en
    vient à souffrir d’avoir simplement fait son métier de journaliste,
    notre communauté aura réussi à se rendre ridicule et à montrer son



    PS: ci-dessous un message que j’ai fait circuler sur Montpellier.


    vous avez peut-être vu cette pétition initiée par plusieurs
    scientifiques français de haut niveau:

    Peut-être l’avez vous même signée.

    Je voulais seulement vous mettre en garde que certains des arguments
    avancés dans ce texte ne sont pas exacts. En tant que membre du bureau
    éditorial de Development, j’ai contacté les éditeurs pour savoir si les
    modifications demandées avaient bien été acceptées par les journaux de
    la Company of Biologists. Ce n’était la semaine dernière pas le cas,
    malgré l’annonce de cette acceptation dans le rapport d’expertise

    Au delà du cas particulier de Catherine Jessus, cette affaire illustre
    que nous sommes collectivement très mauvais dans la gestion de ce genre
    de problème. Le fait que le rapport de première commission d’enquête
    officielle ait été anonyme était une erreur, qui encourage les contre
    expertises également anonymes. Le fait que certaines parties du rapport
    initial aient été rédigées à la va-vite n’aide pas non plus. Signer une
    pétition qui ignore ou au moins minimise les défauts de la première
    expertise n’est pas de nature à renforcer la confiance dans la
    communauté scientifique.

    La création de l’Office Français de l’Intégrité Scientifique est une
    très bonne chose, j’espère que cette institution aura à coeur de définir
    des règles précises pour l’analyse de cas de suspicion de méconduite


    PS: ce message n’est en aucun cas une prise de position sur le cas
    précis de Catherine Jessus.

    Join the March for Science
    Participez à la Marche pour les Sciences

    Patrick Lemaire
    1919 Route de Mende
    F-34293 MONTPELLIER Cédex 5


    1. Alain Trautman, immunologist and a senior figure at CNRS, winner of CNRS silver medal, joined Patrick Lemaire in protest´against the protest of (now) 500 signatories who protest against those who protested against the CNRS-Sorbonne investigative report, which in trun protested against Leonid Schneider and research integrity in general.
      In brief, Trautman expresses his sympathy for Jessus, but finds the attacks on the Le Monde journalist David Larousserie unacceptable. He also seems unconvincenced by the quality of CNRS-Sorbonne report.
      Here is an email circulated by Trautman:

      Une pétition circule actuellement, en principe en soutien à C. Jessus, calomniant au passage un journaliste scientifique, D. Larousserie. Voici pourquoi je ne la signerai pas.
      Rappel des faits.
      Acte I : le site PubPeer, qui fait un travail utile de dénonciation de fraudes scientifiques possibles ou avérées, a épinglé il y a plusieurs mois plusieurs articles problématiques signés en dernier par Catherine Jessus, qui est par ailleurs la directrice courageuse et efficace de l’INSB au CNRS.
      Acte 2 : un comité d’évaluation fait un rapport très mal fait, donc peu convaincant, qui innocente complètement Catherine Jessus.
      Acte 3 : un contre-expertise reprend l’accusation initiale + le rapport innocentant Catherine, et conclut que de très sérieux doutes subsistent.
      Ces 3 premiers actes ont tous été joués par des acteurs anonymes.
      Acte 4 : David Larousserie, un journaliste scientifique du Monde, connu pour le sérieux de ses enquêtes et de ses articles (ce que je certifie personnellement), signale l’existence de cette contre-expertise, pour dire : non, le dossier Jessus n’est pas clos. Ce faisant, il n’a pas pris position, il a tout simplement fait son travail de journaliste scientifique.
      Acte 5 : une pétition est lancée, signée par de très nombreux biologistes français. Son objectif est de soutenir Catherine Jessus. Mais la sympathie que l’on peut avoir pour Catherine (et que je partage) ne peut suffire pour affirmer, sans examen approfondi, qu’il n’y a aucun problème avec ses publications. Et en aucun cas on ne peut justifier, pour aider quelqu’un, de calomnier et salir injustement une autre personne, en l’occurrence un journaliste connu pour la qualité de son travail. Il y a des méthodes qui se disqualifient d’elles-mêmes, sans appel possible.
      Une autre lettre circule, celle de Patrick Lemaire (DR CNRS, qui a lancé SEM, Sciences en Marche). Il défend avec justesse un point de vue proche du mien. Cette lettre est ci-jointe.
      Bonne lecture

      Alain TRAUTMANN
      Institut COCHIN
      INSERM U1016, CNRS UMR 8104
      22, rue Méchain 75014 PARIS


  8. The text included in the email sent out by Patrick Lemaire is complex, and written using a very academic French. It’s a pleasure to read such a well written opinion, however, I suppose that non-native speakers could have some difficulty understanding this text. Please let me translate the section I consider the most important (4th paragraph; the translation is my own personal responsibility):

    “The poor quality along with the anonymous nature of the first report does not justify the fact that the counter-expertise is dancing on pinheads; however, a more reliable work, tightly focused on methodology, could have prevented the second report to be released. The actual issue is therefore not this second report, even if it can be considered as a questionable piece, neither the article authored by Larousserie, since this article only states obvious features. The main problem is rather related to the criticism raised by Larousserie: our community is completely distraught by the emergence of such scientific integrity matters.”


  9. About the Lemaire letter. He says the same things as Larousserie, although a bit more forgiving of the misconduct (“we all did”, publish or perish), and a bit more critical of the rebel group. The two Karaiskou papers seem to be beyond redemption indeed, so I am glad that the respective journals are at least hesitating.

    If the mighty 400 want to be consistent, I advise them to write a new open letter expressing their displeasure with Lemaire. Like Larousserie, he works for a journal, and he refuses to take the CNRS report more serious than the rebel report (Quelle affront!). I would do it in English, so the whole world can appreciate your impressive crusade. I wouldn’t worry too much about “notre communauté aura réussi à se rendre ridicule et à montrer son immaturité”. You have nothing to lose.

    To Patrick Lemaire.
    It is not true that “we all committed misconduct” (if that is what you are saying). For all 400 researchers that made it, you probably can easily find 400 other researchers which were too slow and lost their careers because they tried working the honest way. I understand the pressure, and to some extent I am forgiving, but I can not accept 20 “innocent mistakes” in a single paper.

    But I like your letter. It is brave, accurate and honest, and with the desire to improve things.


  10. Apparently, the petition is not a fake. So why did all these scientists sign the petition? I see two possibilities: either they use also the same type or forgeries, or they fear retaliation if they don’t sign. In both cases, it’s not good news for French science.


    1. It is neither of these explanation. It is just corporatism. These people are part of the herd and when they feel it is under attack they are protecting it no matter what.


  11. I received this comment from a French research group leader at CNRS, who asked not to be named. This is the English original message:

    “If one summarizes the situation at CNRS: a text is signed by CNRS researchers very close to the CNRS direction that perversely attacked a good reputation journalist in Le Monde and gave credit to the anonymous experts of Sorbonne University who cleared Jessus head of Biologists at CNRS despite several evidence of inappropriate behavior. In contrast they vigorously attacked 10 anonymous colleagues from Sauvons l’Universite who critically evaluated the SU report. In other words the anonymity of their friends is good although the anonymity of anyone criticizing officials at CNRS or SU is evil by definition. However, in the last hours, 2 eminent French Biologists from Montpellier and Paris (Lemaire and Trautman respectively) publicly condemned the “pro Jessus letter”. By doing it they also responded to Petit the CNRS CEO who recently applied in the newspaper Le Figaro for non anonymous statements about this scandal. Petit said in the paper he will reply. Wait and see…
    The situation is bad and is slowly but surely destroying CNRS image in France and abroad. It also showed how weak is Petit’s leadership at the head of CNRS as he is totally unable to take vigorous action to stop the internal war, and to take action to reform CNRS governance especially at biologists’ institute INSB. In this respect, Jessus and aids at INSB have tried to threat for 9 months all colleagues who where not loyal enough to her, initiating strong actions against the dissidents in a USSR like manner. That is why most colleagues who have a different opinion than Jessus aficionados should be anonymous. To have a chance to survive they be hidden. God bless CNRS democracy”.


  12. For the record, I’m posting this Word Cloud analysis of email domains of the letter signatories, retrieved June 2nd, when the list suddenly became unavailable. Suggestion: use this list to target institutions that would benefit from a research integrity seminar. Can you spot your domain?


    1. Surprisingly, the INSERM Ethics committee endorsed this letter: Hervé Chneiweiss, Directeur de Recherche CNRS, Président du Comité d’Ethique de l’INSERM contributed to the letter and Marc BRODIN, Comité Ethique Inserm signed it.


  13. Come to think of it. The highest possible CNRS committee, when investigating cheating, is caught cheating when talking to journalists (“all journals accepted our arguments”). What other evidence does one need to understand that cheating is common among high ranking CNRS officials?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.