Someone in the article said, "It's surprising that a falsification could go on at such an extensive level for so long." Sadly, I don't find this incredibly surprising. Although most of us would agree it is incredibly disappointing, infuriating, etc. It seems like every couple of years someone is found guilty of serious misconduct that went on for several years. \n\nFor listings of recent (and archived) ORI findings, go to ORI Case Studies at http://ori.dhhs.gov/misconduct/cases/. Note that these reports only represent cases funded by the U.S. federal government. Presumably many other countries have analogous departments to oversee scientific misconduct. \n\nKeep in mind that these reports only represent cases where all of the following events occurred: someone observed misconduct, the observer came forward and reported it to the institution, the institution conducted a thorough investigation, the institution didn't try to cover up the misconduct, the findings were properly reported to relevant journals for retractions, and the case was referred to the ORI for additional review as required when the research is federally funded. (whew!)\n\nBut how often does the observer of the misconduct even report it in the first place? And how often is the PI actually investigated (rather than the PI shifting the blame to the postdoc, grad student, technician, etc)? In fact, studies show that scientific misconduct is seriously under-reported. For example see Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R: "Scientists behaving badly,". Nature 435:737. June 9, 2005 (Full Text Link at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&cmd=prlinks&retmode=ref&id=15944677)\n\nI wonder how many of us are actually surprised by these findings...\n\nAre you surprised/doubtful, or do you think this sounds accurate?