Science journalism by Leonid Schneider, on research integrity and academic publishing in life sciences and biomedicine
“The presence of such articles online have severely affected Dr. Louis J. Ignarro’s public reputation, and his personal life.
Dr. Ignarro disputes any accusations of wrongdoing. There was no fabrication of data, although there was a mistaken duplication of data which occurred due to error. None of the data was false.” -J.L. Perez, Esq.
“I choose to think of the paper-mills as something like a mediaeval monastic scriptorium, with one table of tonsured monks working on the text, while the limners at another table illuminate the Figures.” – Smut Clyde
Star cancer researcher Pier Paolo Pandolfi left Harvard. The allegations are very serious, but do his new employers in Nevada and Italy mind?
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.
Gabrio Bassotti’s gang uses patients as a source of research material: no consent or ethics approval needed. The patients are real, but the research results are fake.
Guido Kroemer receives on 8 November 2019 the €1mn Lombardy Award for Healthy Ageing, at La Scala in Milan. And why not, one panel member was Carlo Croce.
Smut Clyde is back to Milan, to show you some more artworks exhibited at the Institute of General Pathology. He will give you a quick run of Gaetano Cairo’s doped science.
Smut Clyde and Clare Francis studied the works of Milanese cancer researchers around Maria Alfonsina Desiderio. There are even ideas for T-shirts!
University of Ferrara rejected a journalist’s FOI request about the investigation of its own Rector. The arguments: the media is biased and drives a slander campaign against Giorgio Zauli, and in any case, his research can only be evaluated in a “Science Court” by peer review.
