This is great, though seemingly difficult to come by (most books online seem to be anywhere from ($100 to $400 usd). Added Stafford Beer to my people to learn from list, thank you.
As you know, last December a Special Committee of the University’s Board of Trustees initiated a review of allegations of misconduct related to my scientific research and papers that I authored or coauthored. I have consistently denied any allegations, including those based on anonymous and unsubstantiated sources, that I engaged in fraud or any other unethical conduct related to my research and papers.
The Findings on the Issue of Research Misconduct
Today, after a comprehensive and months-long review process that included input from an independent Scientific Panel, the Special Committee has issued a report detailing its conclusions.
I am gratified that the Panel concluded I did not engage in any fraud or falsification of scientific data. Specifically, the Panel did not find that I engaged in research misconduct regarding the twelve papers reviewed, nor did it find I had knowledge of or was reckless regarding research misconduct in my lab.
As I have emphatically stated, I have never submitted a scientific paper without firmly believing that the data were correct and accurately presented. Today’s report supports that statement.
Stepping Down as President
Although the report clearly refutes the allegations of fraud and misconduct that were made against me, for the good of the University, I have made the decision to step down as President effective August 31.
The Panel’s report identified some areas where I should have done better, and I accept the report’s conclusions. Specifically, the report discusses steps I took to address issues that arose with some publications. I agree that in some instances I should have been more diligent when seeking corrections, and I regret that I was not. The Panel’s review also identified instances of manipulation of research data by others in my lab. Although I was unaware of these issues, I want to be clear that I take responsibility for the work of my lab members.
I expect there may be ongoing discussion about the report and its conclusions, at least in the near term, which could lead to debate about my ability to lead the University into the new academic year.
Stanford is greater than any one of us. It needs a president whose leadership is not hampered by such discussions. I therefore concluded that I should step down before the start of classes. This decision is rooted in my respect for the University and its community and my unwavering commitment to doing what I believe is in the best interests of Stanford.
Leadership Transition and Ongoing Role as Stanford Faculty Member
I communicated my decision to the Board of Trustees, and they accepted my view that a leadership transition in time for the start of the next school year is the best course of action. I am confident the Board will appoint a superb leader as the next President of our beloved institution.
While I will be stepping down as President, I will remain on the Stanford faculty and look forward to continuing to conduct my scientific research on brain development and neurodegeneration under the auspices of one of the world’s preeminent educational institutions.
Assessment and Actions Regarding Research Papers in Question
In the 32 years I have headed a research laboratory, I have published 74 papers of which I am a principal author, and over 150 of which I am a non-principal author.
Of the twelve papers that were part of the Special Committee’s review, seven are ones of which I am a non-principal author and where the images in question were generated in the principal author’s lab. With respect to those papers, the Panel’s conclusions support that I did not have knowledge of any errors or manipulation of research data.
The remaining five papers are ones of which I am a principal author. In a separate document available on my website, I provide information on the Panel’s conclusions and corrective actions I believe it is necessary for me to take with respect to these five papers, but I want to briefly touch on two points.
First, four of the five papers are ones that I have known for some time have issues. While I took steps in the past to address these issues, I agree with the Panel that in some cases those steps were insufficient.
Second, with respect to three of those four papers, which are more than two decades old, new information from the Special Committee’s review has revealed that the person responsible for the issues engaged in manipulation of research data in that trio of papers. Evidence of manipulation of research data by another individual in one figure in a fifth paper published two decades ago has also recently come to light. The Panel concluded I had no knowledge of the data manipulation before any of these papers were published or, indeed, until recently, and that it would not have been reasonable to expect me to have detected it at the time.
With the knowledge I have now, it is clear that the issues with these five papers require me to retract the trio of papers and correct the other two.
These findings have also caused me to further reassess the processes and controls I have in place. While I continually maintain a critical eye on all the science in my lab, I have also always operated my lab on trust – trust in my students and postdocs, and trust that the data they were presenting to me was real and accurate. Going forward, I will be further tightening controls, including, for example, more systematically matching processed images to original raw data, both in the course of each scientific study and especially when bringing a study to publication. I will vigorously apply this and other best practices to ensure that these kinds of problems do not recur.
Thank You
I have been in this role for nearly seven years, and it has been the greatest honor and most fulfilling experience of my career. I will always cherish my time as Stanford’s President, and I am proud of what we accomplished together during my tenure.
I am especially proud of our partnership to develop a Long-Range Vision for Stanford as a Purposeful University, focused on education, knowledge, solutions and sustainability, and on supporting a diverse and inclusive community. From this flowed, among other things, the new Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability; a new undergraduate curriculum focused on citizenship; robust expansion of our financial aid programs; creation of impact accelerators for medicine, education, social problems and sustainability; establishment of institutes to help shape the digital future; and foundational support for our scholars in all fields to remain at the cutting edge of their disciplines. The Vision has inspired our broader community, triggering more philanthropic support in the past few years than was raised in our last major campaign. I look forward to seeing how our community continues to pursue excellence in these areas and others in coming years.
There is so much for which I am grateful, and I have many to thank. I first want to thank the Board of Trustees for giving me the extraordinary opportunity to lead Stanford – and for the diligence and professionalism with which the Scientific Panel, the Special Committee, and the Special Committee’s outside legal counsel conducted the review. I also want to extend a heartfelt thank you to Provost Drell and the entire Stanford leadership team for their partnership and support these last seven years, which have been marked by so many accomplishments. Most of all, I want to thank the entire Stanford community – for your brilliance, dedication, and the wonderful contributions you each have made to this institution as students, professors, staff members, and more. I am confident that Stanford will continue to be a pioneer and a force for good in the world, and I remain eternally grateful and devoted to the institution that we all love.
I look forward to continuing my relationship with all of you and those who become part of the Stanford community in the future.
Im actually interested in becoming a private pilot. ChatGPT pointed me to the proper reading material to get started and I’m going through that, using ChatGPT to clarify various concepts I misunderstand or poorly understand. Its been an amazing supplement to my learning.
I can ask it about the certification process, what certified pilots can and can’t do, various levels of certification, etc.
Cybernetics needs a comeback. It was the most important and underexplored attempt of creating an unified attempt of interpreting reality having at its core ubiquitous concepts such as systems, information and complexity. Unfortunately we've been stuck with a reductionist paradigm for a long time, and most people don't seem to care much about the obvious presence of systems all around (and even inside) them.
You could argue that the resurgence of neural networks being the dominant paradigm in "AI"/ML is a partial comeback of cybernetics (dynamics of simple systems leading to complex behavior). I'd like to understand the history of cybernetics better, but my current impression is that much of cybernetics, or at least ideas in the spirit of cybernetics, just became rebranded after the original practitioners died.
I agree with your general take though. The history of aviation safety is a good example of taking this systemic way of thinking to heart, but most other fields don't seem to take such a wholistic approach in their analysis. I.e. part of the reason planes are so safe nowadays is that the people in the field worked really hard to understand the systems from their basic mechanisms to the psychological and physiological effects on the pilots/crew (granted wanting to not kill people is a great incentive to figure this out). I'm sure there are other examples of intensive analysis throughout the system, but that's the only good example I can think about.
I agree, it's unfortunate how it ended.
My first real contact with cybernetics while being younger was a book "Cybernetics and character" by Marian Mazur (printed in 1976). Later chapters bored me but the beginning of book had impact on me as showed me a bit different mode of thinking which I believe improved my understanding of complex systems.
In book he tried to model different psychological behaviors, like conflicts, using cybernetics language and try to draw conclusion and what such simple models can tell us.
Also in introduction Mazur argued that science should not have artificial bounds as "subjects" and closed walls - there are many problems that arise in many different fields, with many different point of views. That also changed me in a way that I started to actively engage with totally different fields of science. At all, cybernetics is about abstract ideas that are quite universal.
for me, systems theory is a potent heir of cybernetics, and thriving. at least in my field the management sciences. especially with new incarnations incorporating new materialism, or the actor network theory.
Isn't the historical progression cybernetics turns into control theory (via Norbert Weiner) and control theory turns into reinforcement learning. So just had a few rebrandings and never went away.
"Control theory" isn't a term I'm particularly familiar with, but I can at least say that this isn't correct. Cybernetics didn't exist in any unified fashion prior to Wiener writing the book on it in 1948, and it didn't last more than a couple decades afterwards before being laundered piecemeal into mathematics, technical subfields, philosophy/anthropology, and a couple other things of varying interest (Stafford Beer's "Management Cybernetics" is probably the most notable example).
There was a particular schelling point in the '40s surrounding Wiener (and Shannon, Von Neumann, etc) and the Macy Conferences who were searching for an interdisciplinary umbrella, and found it in Cybernetics. It began as something decidedly "para-academic" and never really grew beyond that. The scope of Cybernetics was — and probably is — too broad to fit into a rigid departmental system. Instead of thinking of it as "going" away, it is probably more accurate to say that it never really arrived.
In popular culture, it's become very strongly associated with sci-fi-ish prosthetics and implants. I've had arguments with people who insist that "artificial intelligence" means sci-fi robots exclusively, despite the actual field of study being older than they are, and it's 10 times worse with "cybernetics."
It's a shame, there's nothing wrong with the term or the people who coined and studied it, but I really think trying to hold on to it would hold the field back unnecessarily.
If someone wants to say "I dropped acid and it helped me," fine. People are allowed to share personal experiences, though it's a mistake to universalize them.
But this "oh you didn't meditate enough" or whatever is such nonsense. It's a claim about these drugs and how they work that you have no grounds to make.
I had never heard of anything either so I googled it and there’s quite a bit out there. Meditation induced psychosis seems to be a particularly bad outcome.
I had to stop meditating for a while because of the disturbing shit that would surface during it. Still happens sometimes, but I'm more ready for it now, and see it as part of the benefit. Had to change my mindset, though.
Willing to relocate: yes
Technologies: C++, C, JavaScript, Objective-C, Swift, Python, Ruby, CSS, HTML, Bash, Three.js, ReactJS, Jest, mongoDB, PostgreSQL
Résumé/CV: https://t.ly/kIkIW
Email: gdavid (at) stanford (dot) edu