What to Know About the Stanford President’s Resignation

Marc Tessier-Lavigne, a famend neuroscientist, introduced on Wednesday that he would step down from his place as president of Stanford University, after the discharge of an exterior evaluate of his scientific work discovered fault with a number of high-profile journal articles revealed beneath his purview.

A committee drafted the evaluate in response to allegations that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne was concerned in scientific misconduct. Five well-known biologists and neuroscientists had been on the committee, together with Randy Schekman, who gained the 2013 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, and Shirley Tilghman, who served as president of Princeton University from 2001 to 2013. In its report, which centered on 12 educational papers, the committee mentioned there was no proof that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had knowingly falsified information or withheld such data from the general public.

But the committee famous that “multiple members of Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s labs over the years appear to have manipulated research data and/or fallen short of accepted scientific practices,” declaring a number of errors within the 5 papers for which Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had led or overseen the analysis. In response, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne vowed to retract three of the 5 articles, request main corrections for 2 and step down from his place as president.

“I am gratified that the panel concluded I did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data,” Dr. Tessier-Lavigne mentioned in a press release, including: “Although I was unaware of these issues, I want to be clear that I take responsibility for the work of my lab members.”

What had been the allegations?

In 2015, quite a few considerations had been raised on the web site PubPeer concerning the picture information revealed in three papers — one within the journal Cell in 1999 and two within the journal Science in 2001 — on which Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had served as a lead writer. The considerations various, declaring what gave the impression to be the digital enhancing and manipulation of picture backgrounds, the duplication of specific photographs and the creation of composite photographs that obscured the purity of the scientific information.

These considerations had been revisited in 2022 by a number of media retailers, together with Stanford’s scholar newspaper, The Stanford Daily, which forged additional scrutiny on Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s analysis. The retailers drew consideration to pictures in additional than a dozen completely different papers that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had labored on. Although some photographs appeared to have had little impression on the outcomes of the research, others appeared to have substantively affected the findings.

As a outcome, Stanford’s board of trustees opened an investigation into Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s scientific work and arranged the five-member skilled panel to evaluate the allegations.

In early 2023, The Stanford Daily revealed additional allegations that, in 2009, when Dr. Tessier-Lavigne was working as an govt on the biotechnology firm Genentech, he had revealed a paper within the journal Nature that contained falsified information. Relying on unnamed sources, the coed newspaper recommended {that a} analysis evaluate committee had carried out an inside investigation at Genentech into the 2009 paper and located proof of information falsification. The Stanford Daily additionally recommended that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had been made conscious of those points however prevented them from being launched to the general public.

Dr. Tessier-Lavigne strongly denied the allegations.

Was there fraud?

After assembly 50 occasions and gathering 50,000 paperwork, the five-member skilled panel launched its findings on Wednesday. It concluded that, though there was picture manipulation and proof of methodological carelessness in every of the papers it examined, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne had not engaged in any of this himself and had not “knowingly countenanced others doing so.”

He was additionally absolved of probably the most severe allegation: information falsification in his 2009 Nature paper. The committee famous that the analysis “lacked the rigor expected for a paper of such potential consequence” and decided that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne may have been extra forthright in regards to the paper’s shortcomings, nevertheless it concluded that the allegations of fraud had been false.

In the paper, the researchers claimed to have discovered a sequence response of mind proteins, together with one referred to as Death Receptor 6, that contributed to the event of Alzheimer’s illness. If the analysis held up, it promised to current a brand new avenue for a greater understanding and therapy of the illness.

“There was some excitement that this could have been an alternative way of thinking about the disease,” mentioned Dr. Matthew Schrag, a neurologist at Vanderbilt University.

However, additional analysis — some revealed by Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s lab — discovered that the experiments highlighting the function of the DR6 chain response in Alzheimer’s didn’t show what was claimed. This was true, partly, due to unexpected unwanted side effects of the inhibitors that had been used within the experiments, in addition to impurities within the proteins that had been used.

The skilled panel recommended that, as an alternative of publishing extra articles that disproved the outcomes of the 2009 paper, Dr. Tessier-Lavigne may have issued a direct correction or retraction. But the report decided that the allegations of fraud, first revealed in The Stanford Daily primarily based on the testimony of largely unnamed sources (a few of whom the committee was unable to determine), conflated an unrelated occasion of scientific misconduct in Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s laboratory with the 2009 paper.

Dr. Schrag, who discovered photographs that seemed to be duplicates within the 2009 examine and flagged them publicly in February, mentioned that the examine merely was not rigorous sufficient. “The quality of the work was not high,” mentioned Dr. Schrag, stressing that he was talking for himself and never his college.

What is ‘image manipulation’?

Of the 12 papers the skilled committee reviewed, it discovered “manipulation of research data” in almost all of them. According to the report, such manipulation constitutes a spread of practices, together with digitally altering photographs, splicing panels, utilizing information from unrelated experiments, duplicating information and digitally altering the looks of proteins. But the committee granted that a number of the examples of manipulation may have been inadvertent, or had been maybe an try at a “beautification” of the outcomes.

Mike Rossner, president of the biomedical picture manipulation consulting firm Image Data Integrity, mentioned that he spent 12 years screening manuscripts accepted for publication in The Journal of Cell Biology between 2002 and 2013. He discovered that round 25 % of papers “had some sort of manipulation that violated our guidelines and had to be corrected before publication.” In most situations, he mentioned, the problems had been inadvertent and didn’t have an effect on the interpretation of the info. But in about 1 % of circumstances the paper wanted to be pulled.

“There is this pattern emerging of this not being as rare as we want to believe that it is,” Dr. Schrag mentioned.

Is ‘laboratory culture’ accountable?

The many situations of picture manipulation prompted the skilled committee to talk with postdoctoral researchers who had labored beneath Dr. Tessier-Lavigne at completely different occasions and at completely different establishments, together with Stanford and Genentech.

Many praised Dr. Tessier-Lavigne’s mental acuity and dedication to scientific rigor, however many additionally described a lab tradition that incentivized good outcomes and profitable experiments. They felt that the lab, and Dr. Tessier-Lavigne, “tended to reward the ‘winners’ (that is, postdocs who could generate favorable results) and marginalize or diminish the ‘losers’ (that is, postdocs who were unable or struggled to generate such data),” the report famous.

The committee decided that Dr. Tessier-Lavigne didn’t need this dynamic, however that it could have contributed to the excessive charge of information manipulation that got here out of his labs.

Dr. Tessier-Lavigne, who will step down as president on Aug. 31 however will stay a biology professor at Stanford, mentioned in an e-mail to college students: “While I continually maintain a critical eye on all the science in my lab, I have also always operated my lab on trust — trust in my students and postdocs, and trust that the data they were presenting to me was real and accurate. Going forward, I will be further tightening controls.”