This is very similar to another scientific fraud case from two decades ago, involving Bell Labs and Jan Hendrik Schön, and a series of major papers published in Nature and Science from 1998-2002, and described in an excellent book, Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World by Eugenie Samuel Reich.<p><a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.3248480" rel="nofollow">https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.324848...</a><p>A key point, from the above review, that I think explains a lot of this behavior:<p>> "Reich points out that fraudsters like Schön could get credit for “first discovery” if, before they are caught, their false claims are confirmed by others on the basis of genuine data."<p>It did shake up the field of organic semiconductor device research in physics by increasing scrutiny and changing some requirements (for example, electron microscope imagery of claimed devices is now a requirement for publication). However, as the top post at present notes, the incentives are backwards in academic science these days, and the role of funding organizations and high-profile journals is as problematic as that of the originating fraudsters.<p>Maybe this instance of fraud will do the same for the biomedical field, by forcing researchers to release their raw data and full-resolution images as a condition of publication, although that would require a major shift in behavior in today's patent-driven startup-centered heavily-corporatized biomedical research world.<p>Personally, I'll note that during the years I worked in academia, of the three PIs I worked with, I discovered two engaging in fraudulent research to greater or lesser extent. The main differences between them and the one who wasn't were (1) lab notebook discipline and recording and storing data securely, (2) in-house replication was required, (3) no toleration for BS and shady behavior. The others broke all those rules. (Unfortunately I picked the wrong PI to work with, and ended up leaving academia in a fit of contemptuous disgust.)<p>A good rule of thumb: If some research claim hasn't been replicated, and if the data and methods aren't transparently available, then it's as likely to be fraudulent garbage as not, and it's not worthy of further examination.