Charles Piller

His studies had been cited by leading people in the field thousands and thousands of times, even though they were filled with images that appeared to have been based on doctoring. Doctoring in ways that often fundamentally changed the results so that you could no longer rely on the experiment, no longer rely on its conclusions.

So when I asked the National Institutes of Health, which is the parent agency for NIA, when I asked them, did you, when he was hired, do any sort of check for possible falsification of data in his work? The answer was, no, we didn't. And we don't think that's very useful or helpful to our agency.

So when I asked the National Institutes of Health, which is the parent agency for NIA, when I asked them, did you, when he was hired, do any sort of check for possible falsification of data in his work? The answer was, no, we didn't. And we don't think that's very useful or helpful to our agency.

So when I asked the National Institutes of Health, which is the parent agency for NIA, when I asked them, did you, when he was hired, do any sort of check for possible falsification of data in his work? The answer was, no, we didn't. And we don't think that's very useful or helpful to our agency.

So to me, it was a stunning display of complacency, a stunning display of an attitude that is very much out of step with the realities of our current situation, where the technological means to alter images in a way that's very hard to detect has been increasing day by day. And I think it's going to get worse with AI.

So to me, it was a stunning display of complacency, a stunning display of an attitude that is very much out of step with the realities of our current situation, where the technological means to alter images in a way that's very hard to detect has been increasing day by day. And I think it's going to get worse with AI.

So to me, it was a stunning display of complacency, a stunning display of an attitude that is very much out of step with the realities of our current situation, where the technological means to alter images in a way that's very hard to detect has been increasing day by day. And I think it's going to get worse with AI.

So we need to build up the infrastructure of people that are conscientiously thinking about these issues in advance, carefully, and with the idea in mind that while most scientists are honest and would never do this, there's enough of it out there to alter the field, and we need to take a close look.

So we need to build up the infrastructure of people that are conscientiously thinking about these issues in advance, carefully, and with the idea in mind that while most scientists are honest and would never do this, there's enough of it out there to alter the field, and we need to take a close look.

So we need to build up the infrastructure of people that are conscientiously thinking about these issues in advance, carefully, and with the idea in mind that while most scientists are honest and would never do this, there's enough of it out there to alter the field, and we need to take a close look.

I find it so strange that these organizations that put so much emphasis on making sure that they rule out conflicts of interest, that they disclose conflicts of interest, anything that could potentially influence an article's predisposition or ruling thereafter. are so nonchalant about potential fraud that can occur within the same ecosystem.

I find it so strange that these organizations that put so much emphasis on making sure that they rule out conflicts of interest, that they disclose conflicts of interest, anything that could potentially influence an article's predisposition or ruling thereafter. are so nonchalant about potential fraud that can occur within the same ecosystem.

I find it so strange that these organizations that put so much emphasis on making sure that they rule out conflicts of interest, that they disclose conflicts of interest, anything that could potentially influence an article's predisposition or ruling thereafter. are so nonchalant about potential fraud that can occur within the same ecosystem.

Is that because they're more worried about the fraud coming out and them being implicated in it? Or is it they have blind trust in the people that they work with?

Is that because they're more worried about the fraud coming out and them being implicated in it? Or is it they have blind trust in the people that they work with?

Is that because they're more worried about the fraud coming out and them being implicated in it? Or is it they have blind trust in the people that they work with?

Well, I think it's a combination of factors. First of all, the regulators and the funders, they identify with the scientists who ask for their money and who are asking them to review and approve drugs. They identify with the companies and with the individual scientists at universities. These are their peers. These are their colleagues.

Well, I think it's a combination of factors. First of all, the regulators and the funders, they identify with the scientists who ask for their money and who are asking them to review and approve drugs. They identify with the companies and with the individual scientists at universities. These are their peers. These are their colleagues.

Well, I think it's a combination of factors. First of all, the regulators and the funders, they identify with the scientists who ask for their money and who are asking them to review and approve drugs. They identify with the companies and with the individual scientists at universities. These are their peers. These are their colleagues.

And so they want to assume the best and also want to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's one thing. Second, I think they are technologically behind the times. They are living a little bit in the past. They haven't realized that the degree to which these problems have increased with the ease with which scientific images can be altered in a relatively seamless way.