The president of Stanford University announced he was stepping down after acknowledging serious issues with his research. The Los Angeles Times reports that the exposé of the president’s work was conducted by a freshman.
Rumors of altered images in some of the research papers published by Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne had circulated since 2015. But the allegations involving the neuroscientist got little attention beyond the niche scientific forum where they first appeared — until Stanford freshman Theo Baker decided to take a closer look.
Baker, a journalist for the Stanford Daily, published his first story on problems surrounding Tessier-Lavigne’s research in November. His dogged reporting kicked off a chain of events that culminated this week with the president’s announcement that he would step down from his post at the end of August.
Tessier-Lavigne acted Wednesday after an expert scientific panel convened by the university determined that he failed on multiple occasions to correct errors in his published research on Alzheimer’s disease and related topics, and that he managed labs that at times produced sloppy or even manipulated data.
Of course, Baker covered that too.
In February, the 18-year-old from the Washington, D.C., area became the youngest-ever recipient of journalism’s prestigious George Polk Award for his work on the investigation. Journalism runs in the family: Baker is the son of the New York Times’ chief White House correspondent, Peter Baker, and New Yorker columnist Susan B. Glasser.
The story includes an interview with Baker in which he explained how he contacted experts, then resisted university pressures to back down. Any threat was grounds for another story. He carefully sourced everything he wrote about.

Wow! So important to raise thinkers & problem solvers in these days of BBC Remote Controlled Childhood!!
LikeLike
He resigned the Presidency but kept his job as Stanford professor.
Obviously data falsification on a scientific study for which you were principal investigator doesn’t matter to Stanford as long as you were not aware of it at the time (even if you later became aware and did not address it).
Once you are in The Club, you are in for life.
Stanford doesn’t care, but regardless of whether he knew, what grad student is ever going to want to work in his lab going forward?
.
LikeLike
Tenure.
LikeLike
Tenure doesn’t protect from consequences of actual wrongdoing, it just provides due process. Something we should all have.
LikeLike
Good point Dienne
Lots of people are under the misapprehension that tenure allows one to do anything one wants with no consequences.
But the latter is not actually part of tenure but instead part of the (unwritten) bylaws of The Club (TM)
LikeLike
Tenure protects you from being fired immediately. There’s a process.
LikeLike
Bobbled the ball but recovered it (or at least tried)
LikeLike
Lol, I’m just saying, if you’re wondering why he hasn’t been fired, as you seem to be, tenure is the reason.
LikeLike
It most likely won’t matter one way or another, cuz his lab is going to be viewed as effectively radioactive to grad students going forward.
LikeLike
Poet-
In 2021, Tessier-Levigne earned $1,555,296 at Stanford and he got another $700,000 as a board member of Regeneron.
Critics have described Stanford as a think (spin) tank with students.
LikeLike
Sorry but the skeptic in me suspects that the Times and the New Yorker may have picked up part of the tab for this story. In any event jr. will be getting some nice job offers. Perhaps I am too cynical.
LikeLike
Don’t see why that’s skepticism or cynicism. The press needs promising, intrepid, indefatigable journalism superstars on the rise like him, and media companies will need to financially support his investigative work when they hire him.
LikeLike
He should consider next taking a look into CREDO and the Hoover Institute at Stanford. Organizations connected to charter schools and standardized testing tend to be rife with ethically questionable activities.
LikeLike
So for some odd reason when i attempted to sign on using my laptop word press did not see a valid email.
The comment originally read “unknowingly picked up part of the tab”.
Which conveys the meaning of what I actually meant.
The skeptic in me suspects that young Theo had an assist from someone on the staff of the NY Times. Namely Peter Baker
Like I said perhaps I am too cynical.
LikeLike
Joel, I would be very surprised if you weren’t correct.
LikeLike
The MAGA fascists that are dominating what was once a conservative political party fear and hate reporters like Baker.
LikeLike
Congratulations Marc and best for your continued great work!
LikeLike
In other news. Welcome to the first-ever Say Your Piece Opinion Poll, from Bob Shepherd.
Please rank the following in order of approval by you.
a. Colorectal cancer
b. Parasitoid wasps
c. Donald Trump
d. Flesh-eating bacteria (necrotizing fasciitis)
LikeLike
Also off topic, here is an monumental article from the LA Times about the writers and a actors strikes. (UTLA was out in support of them today!) If you know much about education politics and business, the parallels are unmistakable. Down with the oppressive tech bro model of everything. https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2023-07-21/column-hollywood-sag-aftra-strike-strike-silicon-valleys-magical-thinking
LikeLiked by 1 person
I added the word monumental, but forgot to change the article before it.
LikeLike
Among other editing errors.
LikeLike
Glad I’m not the only one who makes such errors, LCT! Thanks for the info about these strikes!
LikeLike
The Stanford “investigation” and report on Tessier-Lavigne-Lavigne seem to have been conducted in a way that gives Tessier-Lavigne the benefit of the doubt and paints him in the most generous light: as someone who had no clue what was going on his lab and simply “dropped the ball” and failed to follow up on allegations of malfeasance by others his lab (You know, the sort of person Stanford hires as president)
For example, as Baker reported, the panels “failure” to grant anonymity to those who were privy to what went on at Genentech may have had the effect of excluding critical witness testimony. The panel also simply claimed (without proof) that two instances had been “confused” as a rationale to dismiss allegations of fraud in a major 2009 paper.
Stanford officials may believe the “report” will put the whole sorry affair to bed, but I would not be so sure.
If it were me under the microscope, I would not mess with this “kid”, who quite obviously has a nose for fish.
LikeLike
Speaking of Stanford- the head of a huge Chinese conglomerate likes the education views of Eric Hanushek (husband of Credo’s boss) very much.
The “largest education prize on earth” was given by Chen Yidan to Hanushek in 2021. If I recall correctly, a few years ago, Hanushek had an on-line post of his 37-page resume. I couldn’t find grants listed.
LikeLike