It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Dr Robert Ryan, who has received almost £1.1 million in grants for his groundbreaking work in molecular bacteriology, has been suspended from his senior post at Dundee University.
The extent of the alleged misconduct is unclear, however reports suggest it may have spanned a number of years and involved numerous prestigious scientific journals.
The allegations are a blow not only to Dundee University, recognised as a world leader in life sciences, but also to institutions around the world who have worked with Dr Ryan.
. . .
Dr Ryan has received extensive public funding as a senior research fellow for the Wellcome trust, the world’s largest medical research charity, where he is at the forefront of global research which could lead to new treatments for cystic fibrosis.
However it is claimed he used identical images across multiple papers, claiming they were different strains. In some cases, it is alleged the evidence was flipped or rotated, which could indicate an “intent to deceive”, according to the source.
Conclusion An RCS chronology calculated according to the stated methodology of Cook et al 2000 yields an entirely different result than that reported by Cook. In my opinion, Cook, like Gergis et al 2012, did not use the procedure described at length in the article – in Cook’s case, he did not use the RCS procedure described in the article as a method to preserve low-frequency variability. In my opinion, Cook’s chronology was most likely produced using a variation of “traditional” standardization that did not preserve low frequency variability. Cook’s chronology has been used over and over in multiproxy studies: Mann et al 1998, Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, IPCC AR4, Mann et al 2008; most recently, Gergis et al 2016 and Esper et al 2016. Despite its repeated use, one can only conclude that no climate scientist ever looked closely at Cook’s actual chronology, a conclusion circumstantially supported by the persistence of gross errors in the Cook measurement data, even in the Esper et al 2016 version, issued more than 20 years after the original measurements. The actual RCS chronology for Mt Read has elevated values in the late first millennium and early second millennium. Gergis et al evidently calculated such a chronology and, in another flagrant instance of ex post cherry picking, decided to use the ancient Cook chronology, which turns out to have been erroneously calculated (like Gergis et al 2012, one might add). Use of the Mt Read RCS chronology and Law Dome series would obviously lead to substantially different results in the medieval period where Gergis only used two proxies.