Stanford President Research Misconduct: Stanford’s Eleventh President and neuroscientist, Marc Tessier-Lavigne steps back from his position after a probe flaws his previous research.
Stanford President Research Misconduct
The president of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Lavigne announced on Wednesday that he will resign from his position after a report came to light that he had failed to revamp mistakes in years-old scientific documents.
In a statement, Marc Tessier-Lavigne stated, that he was cleared of “any fraud or falsification of scientific data” and “for the good of the University, I have made the decision to step down as President effective August 31.” he added.
He said, “I’ve never submitted a scientific paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented,”
The Board of Trustees inquiry stopped saying there are no pieces of evidence that suggest he “personally engaged in research misconduct.”
Stanford President Will Resign After Report Found Flaws in His Research
64-year-old neuroscientist, Marc Tessier-Lavigne regions after faults were found in his research.
Marc Tessier-Lavigne, 64, who was appointed Stanford President in 2016, has been under rising scrutiny in recent months after several stories reported by The Stanford Daily alleged in November 2022, that some papers published under him as a prime author had falsification data and other defects.
The Stanford Daily had asked several science misconduct investigators to review the president’s paper.
The panel, led by former federal judge Mark Filip, review his work in the last of 2022 in December and the panel released the report on Wednesday Morning.
After an investigation of over 50,000 papers to review, 12 papers involved Tessier-Lavigne and he was the principal author of five papers from which. Afterward, the review stopped short of charging Tessier-Lavigne with personally falsifying data in the five investigations that he led.
The review concluded, “Nonetheless, based on the available research record and other factors, each of the papers has serious flaws in the presentation of research data; in at least four of the five papers, there was apparent manipulation of research data by others,”
