Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Meclizine11 t1_j961pwf wrote

Reply to comment by LordVayder in Review found ‘falsified data’ in Stanford President’s research, colleagues allege by ScoMoTrudeauApricot

Can you even call the president of a college a scientist? The one in my neck of the woods is just a show pony brought out for speeches, photo ops, and schmoozing with entitled assholes. No science in sight. He's a glorified mascot, and his suit is his costume.

−61

ErisWheel t1_j966wu8 wrote

That's a really weird comment. Wondering if he's "really a scientist" because he's also a university president doesn't make any sense. One is a professional designation while the other is an academic position.

Whatever else he may be now, prior to this point this guy was a Rhodes scholar and a credentialed physiologist and neuroscientist who spent a decade as the de facto head of a biotech/drug research and development firm. So yes, he's a scientist.

Falsifying data is one of the worst things you can do in the sciences and absolutely calls his entire career into question, but it's absurd to suggest he's not really a scientist because of an academic appointment.

111

Schan122 t1_j96egcn wrote

Thank you for calling out poor logic where it stands.

21

TogepiMain t1_j96mvc2 wrote

Okay, and that's probably true and sucks, but a "scientist" doesn't just become "Jim" when he takes the lab coat off. Which, is already me really really narrowcasting scientists, but thats just more to my point

5