By Leonid Schneider, on research integrity, biomedical ethics and academic publishing
Who brought us COVID-19? The Neanderthals. The susceptibility to the SARS-CoV2 coronavirus, but also to diabetes, obesity, allergies, skin diseases, smoking and autism all happened because your great-[…]-great-grandfather could not keep his todger in his trousers many thousands of years ago.
Scholarly publishing is broken, and no repair is possible. At least let’s point fingers at the elites and laugh. Can science trust Science?
Some geneticists have very unorthodox ideas. These might sound like racism or eugenics to simple folks, but it is really high science. UK Biobank is apparently on board.
This is the second part of the Bologna whistleblower account. As the university was burying their own misconduct findings, Oxford University Press and their ignoble editor were busy punishing and gaslighting the whistleblower.
Elisabetta Ciani uses mouse models to help children with neurological genetic disorders. Problem is: her own lab members reported Ciani for data manipulation. Records reveal that University of Bologna gaslighted the whistleblower, blamed the transgenic mice alone and fibbed the funding charities.
Edinburgh psychologists announce in Nature Communications genes for being rich. A Christmas Carol.
Oxford professor Dame Kay E Davies, DBE FRS FMedSci, edits the journal Human Molecular Genetics. If you are a scientist who likes Photoshop, but afraid to get caught, give Dame Kay a call!
I publish exclusively two uncensored UCL screening panel reports into the David Latchman and Anastasis Stephanou affair. Now we know which papers were investigated and which requested retractions didn’t happen.
In David Latchman affair, UCL finally gave censored investigative reports to journalists. These show the Master of Birkbeck was found guilty of misconduct by recklessness, trice. Former investigator John Hardy now speaks out exclusively on my site.
Irina Stancheva was investigated in Edinburgh for fraud at least twice, in 2009 and 2017, yet retraction and correction decisions were not implemented. Apparently to protect the reputation of Nobel Prize candidate Sir Adrian Bird and his male mentees, primarily Richard Meehan. One wonders: how much of Bird research in past two decades was actually fabricated by Stancheva?
For Better Science