“the Committee believes that when carelessness or scientific dishonesty can be found in so many articles with so many different authors in question, there must be a lack of training and / or lack of control over data handling. The committee therefore believes that it is qualified probability that there has been an institutional system error when it comes to training. The committee believes that good routines for training are a line responsibility and can not only be attributed to group or project manager.”
The University of Münster in Germany shows with a good example how to act on evidence of data manipulation. Neuroscientist Andreas Püschel has been found guilty of research misconduct. It was once again about a paper authored by his former PhD student and now Luxembourg stem cell researcher, Jens Schwamborn.
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.