As you know, last December a Special Committee of the University’s Board of Trustees initiated a review of allegations of misconduct related to my scientific research and papers that I authored or coauthored. I have consistently denied any allegations, including those based on anonymous and unsubstantiated sources, that I engaged in fraud or any other unethical conduct related to my research and papers.
The Findings on the Issue of Research Misconduct
Today, after a comprehensive and months-long review process that included input from an independent Scientific Panel, the Special Committee has issued a report detailing its conclusions.
I am gratified that the Panel concluded I did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data. Specifically, the Panel did not find that I engaged in research misconduct regarding the twelve papers reviewed, nor did it find I had knowledge of or was reckless regarding research misconduct in my lab.
As I have emphatically stated, I have never submitted a scientific paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented. Today’s report supports that statement.
Stepping Down as President
Although the report clearly refutes the allegations of fraud and misconduct that were made against me, for the good of the University, I have made the decision to step down as President effective August 31.
The Panel’s report identified some areas where I should have done better, and I accept the report’s conclusions. Specifically, the report discusses steps I took to address issues that arose with some publications. I agree that in some instances I should have been more diligent when seeking corrections, and I regret that I was not. The Panel’s review also identified instances of manipulation of research data by others in my lab. Although I was unaware of these issues, I want to be clear that I take responsibility for the work of my lab members.
I expect there may be ongoing discussion about the report and its conclusions, at least in the near term, which could lead to debate about my ability to lead the University into the new academic year.
Stanford is greater than any one of us. It needs a president whose leadership is not hampered by such discussions. I therefore concluded that I should step down before the start of classes. This decision is rooted in my respect for the University and its community and my unwavering commitment to doing what I believe is in the best interests of Stanford.
Leadership Transition and Ongoing Role as Stanford Faculty Member
I communicated my decision to the Board of Trustees, and they accepted my view that a leadership transition in time for the start of the next school year is the best course of action. I am confident the Board will appoint a superb leader as the next President of our beloved institution.
While I will be stepping down as President, I will remain on the Stanford faculty and look forward to continuing to conduct my scientific research on brain development and neurodegeneration under the auspices of one of the world’s preeminent educational institutions.
Assessment and Actions Regarding Research Papers in Question
In the 32 years I have headed a research laboratory, I have published 74 papers of which I am a principal author, and over 150 of which I am a non-principal author.
Of the twelve papers that were part of the Special Committee’s review, seven are ones of which I am a non-principal author and where the images in question were generated in the principal author’s lab. With respect to those papers, the Panel’s conclusions support that I did not have knowledge of any errors or manipulation of research data.
The remaining five papers are ones of which I am a principal author. In a separate document available on my website, I provide information on the Panel’s conclusions and corrective actions I believe it is necessary for me to take with respect to these five papers, but I want to briefly touch on two points....
Not to be a grouch, but I'm sort of not surprised at this point.
The sheer volume that the big American units have been caught in over the last 5 or so years has really sobered me up on their supposedly high quality research standards.
That's not to say they're uniformly bad - just that they don't have an untouchable track record like they imply.
6 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 26.9 ms ] threadDear Stanford Community,
As you know, last December a Special Committee of the University’s Board of Trustees initiated a review of allegations of misconduct related to my scientific research and papers that I authored or coauthored. I have consistently denied any allegations, including those based on anonymous and unsubstantiated sources, that I engaged in fraud or any other unethical conduct related to my research and papers.
The Findings on the Issue of Research Misconduct
Today, after a comprehensive and months-long review process that included input from an independent Scientific Panel, the Special Committee has issued a report detailing its conclusions.
I am gratified that the Panel concluded I did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data. Specifically, the Panel did not find that I engaged in research misconduct regarding the twelve papers reviewed, nor did it find I had knowledge of or was reckless regarding research misconduct in my lab.
As I have emphatically stated, I have never submitted a scientific paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented. Today’s report supports that statement.
Stepping Down as President
Although the report clearly refutes the allegations of fraud and misconduct that were made against me, for the good of the University, I have made the decision to step down as President effective August 31.
The Panel’s report identified some areas where I should have done better, and I accept the report’s conclusions. Specifically, the report discusses steps I took to address issues that arose with some publications. I agree that in some instances I should have been more diligent when seeking corrections, and I regret that I was not. The Panel’s review also identified instances of manipulation of research data by others in my lab. Although I was unaware of these issues, I want to be clear that I take responsibility for the work of my lab members.
I expect there may be ongoing discussion about the report and its conclusions, at least in the near term, which could lead to debate about my ability to lead the University into the new academic year.
Stanford is greater than any one of us. It needs a president whose leadership is not hampered by such discussions. I therefore concluded that I should step down before the start of classes. This decision is rooted in my respect for the University and its community and my unwavering commitment to doing what I believe is in the best interests of Stanford.
Leadership Transition and Ongoing Role as Stanford Faculty Member
I communicated my decision to the Board of Trustees, and they accepted my view that a leadership transition in time for the start of the next school year is the best course of action. I am confident the Board will appoint a superb leader as the next President of our beloved institution.
While I will be stepping down as President, I will remain on the Stanford faculty and look forward to continuing to conduct my scientific research on brain development and neurodegeneration under the auspices of one of the world’s preeminent educational institutions.
Assessment and Actions Regarding Research Papers in Question
In the 32 years I have headed a research laboratory, I have published 74 papers of which I am a principal author, and over 150 of which I am a non-principal author.
Of the twelve papers that were part of the Special Committee’s review, seven are ones of which I am a non-principal author and where the images in question were generated in the principal author’s lab. With respect to those papers, the Panel’s conclusions support that I did not have knowledge of any errors or manipulation of research data.
The remaining five papers are ones of which I am a principal author. In a separate document available on my website, I provide information on the Panel’s conclusions and corrective actions I believe it is necessary for me to take with respect to these five papers, but I want to briefly touch on two points....
The sheer volume that the big American units have been caught in over the last 5 or so years has really sobered me up on their supposedly high quality research standards.
That's not to say they're uniformly bad - just that they don't have an untouchable track record like they imply.