Vincent Mourik

YouTube video by Reuters Federal funding cuts could 'cripple science,' says Nobel Prize winner | REUTERS

Good to see John standing up for science

youtube.com/watch?v=7Vcm...

I'm sure its all worth it!

Yes, I was specifically alluding to your almost indefinite patience.

You are the anomaly.

@craiggidney.bsky.social If a technically versed reader needs to put in this much effort to understand a major caveat in a paper, that paper is misleading. The paper should be updated to fix this. Too bad published papers petrify and cannot be touched by mortal physicists.

Lol

I notice in my community numerous conferences featuring fraudsters. Along with people who stated that it's time to move on, and the lesson has been learned etc. Of course people who called out fraud are typically excluded.

I wonder if other communities went through this and have they survived?

There is no reliability nor safety in dealing with these people. 50/end

Summarizing: this nat com paper and the nat nano paper represents a decade of scientific malpractice, toxicity, intimidation, harassment, cover-up and plain retaliation at QuTech and TU Delft. Throughout all this I was a PhD student, post-doc and right now I am on a tenure track. 49/n

Vandersypen reach out to the leadership at my current employer, calling me an obstructionist and asking them to talk with me. I am still on a tenure track. 48/n

A few months later, after I publicly questioned Kouwenhoven / TU Delft's lobby of the Dutch government in the lead-up to the founding of QuantumDeltaNL (of which Delft got the lion's share of many many millions), Vandersypen retaliated against me. 47/n

Within a few weeks of his reinstatement as a full prof at TU Delft, right after the appearance of a scathing report of the Dutch educational inspection of toxic culture and social unsafety at Delft, Kouwenhoven harassed me at a conference we both attended. One of his team members did the same. 46/n

Io and behold, without an open integrity investigation against Kouwenhoven, the way was paved for his rehire as a distinguished professor at Delft University of Technology... Sidenote: Vandersypen used to be post-doc in Kouwenhoven's team, and was groomed by him for a leadership position. 45/n

to the Delft integrity committee for possible integrity violations regarding the nat com and nat nano papers (as if such a report can be unseen by an integrity committee...), upon which Tim van der Hagen and his board decided there was no longer a ground for the integrity investigation. 44/n

The other two being the ones related to the two retracted Nature papers. Here's the deal. Summer 2024, Lieven Vandersypen gets his final acquittal from the board, headed by Tim van der Hagen, of our complaint against him for not sharing data. Just prior to that, Vandersypen revoked his report 43/n

Parallel to this, based on our reports and suggestions, QuTech director Lieven Vandersypen had no choice but to make a report to the Delft integrity committee for possible integrity concerns regarding these two papers. This was a third integrity investigation into Kouwenhoven et al. 42/n

We went through a years long process of peer review of our criticism. I'm very relieved to no longer be an author on this piece of scientific malpractice and its nonsensical correction with perpetual editorial expression of concern. 41/n

During this time I also asked corresponding author Önder Gül if he knew of the data manipulations at the time in 2016, to which he responded affirmatively, see the science news piece. 40/n

Together with Sergey Frolov and Kun Zuo, we wrote an extensive analysis, which we submitted to the journal in December 2021, together with a request for removal of authorship in the case of myself and Kun Zuo. zenodo.org/records/6325... 39/n

I did get access to the full nature communications data in summer 2021, in my capacity as a co-author. I started analysing these and I found many undisclosed data manipulations, all to the effect of hiding unwanted features and propping conductance values up to the desired quantized value. 38/n

Comment on "Ballistic Majorana Nanowire Devices" by Gul et al. Nature Nanotechnology 2018 This work re-analyzes Gul et al. Nature Nanotechnology 2018 "Ballistic Majorana nanowire devices" using fuller data from the original experiments released in 2023 on Zenodo. The authors have prepared ...

They corrected some of their data manipulations, while hiding many more. For evidence of this, compare the correction of the nature nanotechnology paper to our recent analysis: arxiv.org/abs/2407.18623 37/n

This included a complaint against head of the board of the University Tim van der Hagen for his role in the obstruction of data sharing. Needless to say that all these complaints went nowhere. Throughout this time, Kouwenhoven et al started engaging with the journals on their own terms. 36/n

We went to the QuTech director, Lieven Vandersypen, with our data requests. He refused. We confronted him with the Netherlands Code of Conduct saying that materials should be shared for verification and reproduction. We didn't hear from him, we complained against him and other Delft officials. 35/n

Kouwenhoven never responded to our data requests. After the summer in 2020, the integrity committee told us we were no longer a part in their investigation, nor would they investigate any additional papers, as the board had confined their scope to a single paper. 34/n

This is when @tudelft.nl comes into play. As soon as we first heard from the Delft integrity committee, we pointed out to them that we suspected a pattern of multiple unreliable papers from Kouwenhoven's lab. And we requested access to the data behind these. All this was early June 2020. 33/n

and Leo Kouwenhoven et al on Quantized Majorana Conductance, which led to its retraction. I got very worried about the two papers discussed in this thread, after all, although I was a co-author on one of them, I had never seen the underlying data and I had always been doubtful of the claims 32/n

the work better, to which he never responded. Anyway, both manuscripts eventually made it through peer review and got published - see links above. Fast forward to early 2020, when @spinespresso.bsky.social and myself had just unconvered data falsification in the 2018 Nature paper of Hao Zhang 31/n

I was dropped off the Nature Nanotechnology paper, I was ok with that as I was very uneasy with that entire part of the work. This was communicated to me via an email asking me for my opinion on the manuscript by corresponding author Önder Gül. I did ask him again to see full data to understand 30/n

I remained co-author on the nat com paper. I didn't question anything seriously about it, because 1) I didn't dare to, given my earlier experience with Kouwenhoven, and 2) I wasn't aware of data manipulations that came to light later. I still felt uneasy about the claim of large mean free path 29/n