> Today, the Stanford board’s special committee released the law firm’s and scientific panels’ findings, which are based on more than 50,000 documents, interviews with over 50 people, and input from forensic science experts. Its report finds that for seven papers on which Tessier-Lavigne was a middle, or secondary, author, he bears no responsibility for any data manipulation. The primary authors have taken responsibility and in many cases are issuing corrections.
> But the 22-page report (plus appendices) found “serious flaws” in all five papers on which Tessier-Lavigne is corresponding or senior author: the 1999 Cell paper, the two 2001 Science papers, a 2004 Nature paper, and the 2009 Nature paper from Genentech. In four of these studies, the investigation found “apparent manipulation of research data by others.” For example, in one case, a single blot from the 2009 Cell paper was used in three different experiments, and a blot from that paper was reused in one of the 2001 Science papers.
> The 2004 Nature paper also contains manipulated images, the report found. Although the report says the allegations of fraud and a cover-up at Genentech involving the 2009 Nature paper were “mistaken”—people likely conflated the fraudulent paper a year earlier, and Genentech scientists’ problems replicating the work, it suggests—that paper showed “a lack of rigor” that falls below standards.
> But the 22-page report (plus appendices) found “serious flaws” in all five papers on which Tessier-Lavigne is corresponding or senior author: the 1999 Cell paper, the two 2001 Science papers, a 2004 Nature paper, and the 2009 Nature paper from Genentech. In four of these studies, the investigation found “apparent manipulation of research data by others.” For example, in one case, a single blot from the 2009 Cell paper was used in three different experiments, and a blot from that paper was reused in one of the 2001 Science papers.
> The 2004 Nature paper also contains manipulated images, the report found. Although the report says the allegations of fraud and a cover-up at Genentech involving the 2009 Nature paper were “mistaken”—people likely conflated the fraudulent paper a year earlier, and Genentech scientists’ problems replicating the work, it suggests—that paper showed “a lack of rigor” that falls below standards.
https://www.science.org/content/article/stanford-president-t...
PubPeer alsoshows which papers they've been involved with that has "Errata" or "Expression of Concern": https://pubpeer.com/search?q=authors%3A+%22tessier-lavigne%2...