Erdogan’s academic elites
Önder Metin had a rogue PhD student whom he trusted “to ensure their academic growth”. But “mistakes were made by mistake”, conclusions are never affected. Yet those who still complain, will pay dearly.
By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
Önder Metin had a rogue PhD student whom he trusted “to ensure their academic growth”. But “mistakes were made by mistake”, conclusions are never affected. Yet those who still complain, will pay dearly.
“A consumable component, magnetic beads, used by the laboratory was supplied by Magnacell Ltd, a company that has Dr T Jurkowski as a director. Cardiff University did not tender for these consumables at the time”.
The journal Science and the anthropology community manage an amazing feat of celebrating bullying, harassment and bad science while urinating upon Douglas Adams’ grave.
“I felt I had a lot to give the world. Getting my first at university and doing so well in research was an antidote. Underneath, though, there is part of me that feels maybe one day someone will discover that I am stupid.” – Tony “Blue Peter” Hollander
England leads the world in science,
any fule kno. Meet some more of the star jesters: Nick Lemoine, Peter St George-Hyslop and Xin Lu. They are curing cancer and Alzheimer with Photoshop.
Gel images are full of fraud and luckily a thing of the past. Science of today is digital, the figures are diagrams, charts and bar plots where image integrity sleuths can take a hike.
Moshe Szyf and Shafat Rabbani of McGill University in Canada accomplished this transition.
“We all hype our work. We want to tell people our work is important. These patients, many of them coming to enroll in these trials, they have no other hope.” -Steven Houser, Hero of Research Ethics, Temple University
David Argyle was about to become President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. But then bullying allegations emerged, which the University of Edinburgh swiftly dismissed and suppressed. Now they can do same with the data integrity concerns in Argyle’s research.
“The Board assesses that there are no scientifically acceptable explanations for why the notified researchers have fabricated research results in the manner that has occurred in the notified articles. Raw data also does not support the reported results. [..]
In summary, the Board finds therefore that the notified researchers have been guilty of misconduct in research.”
“All these SEM, EDX, TEM, BET, XRD, FT-IR, and contact angles in the theses and papers from our lab, where do they come from? We made them up. “









