Nobel-winning neuroscientist faces scrutiny for data discrepancies in >30 papers

I have no opinion on this specific case, but I had visibility into a lot of research at both MIT and Stanford. A lot of data is made up.

In a few cases, this is simply fabricated, but in most cases, the techniques used don't raise to the level of data fabrication. There is a lot one can do in data analysis, interpretation, experimental design, etc. designed to lead to a specific result. MIT, at least, will not treat this as malpractice, even though the ultimate results are nonsense, and often lead to actual human harm when they drive real-world actions.

It pisses me off.