Thursday, 12 June 2014

The treacherous decision of the Uppsala District Court.

Or the day when PhD students in Sweden became less protected than berries-pickers

In Sweden the main law governing universities is the Higher Education Ordinance (HEO). In addition each university has its own regulations, which are designed to describe in more detail certain laws. Of course, local regulations must not contradict HEO.
There were numerous violations of the law and even crimes committed by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) during their pathetic attempts to hide forgery research that were (and are) going on at the university. However, it was not possible to bring all cases at once before the court; at least I didn't know the way to do it. So, the case I brought before the Uppsala District Court was the termination of my employment as a PhD student* and the use of me as a shadow work force before appointing as a PhD. I hoped that during litigation the Uppsala Court would use its authority to initiate investigations of other crimes committed by SLU.
Briefly: I have been accepted as a PhD student at SLU in January 2010. The period of PhD education in Sweden is 4 years. Nevertheless, in the middle of the January 2012 I found out that it was the last month when I was going to be paid. No notice, no explanations, not even a single proof that I failed to “fulfil the requirements specified in the individual study plan”. I described the situation in details in the previous posts.
So, let us read what the Swedish law says about PhD employment:
HEO Chapter 5, Section 1: “Higher education institutions may establish specific post for third-cycle students to enable them to complete their third-cycle studies.”
HEO Chapter 5, Section 7: “Appointment to a doctoral studentship shall apply for an indefinite period, however for no longer than until a specified date and never for a period extending more than one year after the award of a PhD of a doctorate in the fine, applied and performing      art. A person may be appointed to a doctoral studentship for a total of eight years. The total employment period may, however, not exceed the time corresponding to full-time third-cycle study for four years. The time spent studying by the third-cycle student while not appointed to a doctoral studentship shall be deducted from these periods.”
Chapter 6; Section 30; HEO: “If a doctoral student substantially neglects his or her undertakings in the individual study plan, the vice-chancellor shall decide that the doctoral student is no longer entitled to supervision and other study resources. Before such a decision is made, the doctoral student and the supervisors shall be given an opportunity to make representations. The case shall be considered on the basis of their reports and any other records available. The assessment shall take into account whether the higher education institution has fulfilled its own undertakings in the individual study plan. A written record of the decision shall be made, which is to include reasons for the decision. Resources may not be withdrawn for any period in which the third-cycle student has been appointed to a doctoral studentship or is receiving a doctoral grant.”

SLU local regulations are even stricter. According to the Guidelines for research education in the Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences: “The department is responsible for providing the financing necessary for the research education to be carried out. This applies also in event of the absence of the financing anticipated by the department at the time of the research student's admission. The financial responsibility applies as long as the research student fulfills the requirements specified in the individual study plan.

Now the quote from the decision of the Uppsala District Court: “An obligation to have a doctoral student employed for four years cannot be inferred from the Higher Education Ordinance” 

The image was kindly provided by

The decision made by the Uppsala District Court is a precedent and it will have the most severe consequences for all PhD students, who work at the Swedish universities. Actually this decision invalidates HEO in total. Now all guaranties provided by HEO are annulled. The Uppsala District Court confirmed that university has rights to terminate PhD employment outside the procedure prescribed by the law, meaning that PhD can be cancelled at any time on a whim of a supervisor. No more investigations and long proceedings about whether or not “a doctoral student substantially neglects his or her undertakings in the individual study plan”. Now scientists who work for their PhD at the Swedish universities became even less protected then seasonal berries-pickers. PhD workers became absolutely rightless and fall into total dependence of their supervisors. This is slavery!
It was too much for the Uppsala District Court to convict SLU, because then all bad deeds of the university would come out: forgery, exploitation of foreign scientists, falsification of evidences, sexual harassment, and abuse of power. The Court did not want to spoil the image of the national university. The Court preferred to sacrifice the law and put on danger careers of young scientists.
Of course I appealed the decision of the Uppsala District Court and I am waiting whether or not the appeal will be granted. 

* ”a PhD student” is a very deceiving term: it misrepresented a scientist who works for his PhD degree as some sort of a schoolboy, who spends most of his time attending lectures and doing homework. This perception of a PhD position is nothing but wrong! Scientists who do research to obtain their PhD degree are working horses. They together with post-docs are those who sweat in labs, are eaten by gnats on fieldwork, and go blind staring for hours at computer screens. They are the true workers of science! And the less protected ones…

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

PhD student against university bureaucracy: a hearing at the Uppsala District Court

Forewarned is forearmed

My PhD employment was cancelled without notice by the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in January 2012. More then two years I have been trying to find out what rights in fact a PhD student  has at SLU.
First, this issue was raised before the Swedish HigherEducation AuthorityAfter one year of sluggish correspondence the answer was: foreign PhD student has no rights. (The details will be posted later.)

Then the matter was brought before the Uppsala District Court. The court proceeded with no hurry for the next one year but recently declared that is finally ready to make a decision. Hearings will be open for public. Since there will be a lot of useful information, which SLU usually never discloses, it might be useful for PhD student to hear it by themselves. Arm yourself with knowledge!
For example, did you know that:
  • PhD position is a temporal employment (at least for the foreigners)
  • Being a temporal employment it can be cancelled (or expired and not renewed) at any moment
  • SLU is not obligated to inform a temporal employee about termination of his employment
  • An appeal against termination of the temporal employment can be done only within two weeks
  • Neither a supervisor nor SLU have any formal obligations before a student
  • A person can be enrolled into studies without him knowing about it
  • SLU is not obligated to present evidences; its word is beyond doubts
  • Swedish law and local SLU regulations are written to deceive those gullible idealists who really believe that they might have rights

It is only a part of the questions that will be discussed at the court dispute.

The hearings will take place on Monday, 
March 24th, 2014 at 9:00 am
Room 3, Courtrooms, floor 1
Kungsgatan 49, Uppsala District Court
Languages: English / Swedish

Information about any changes in the schedule will be posted here

March 25, 2014
The decision of the Uppsala District Court will be announced on April 14th, 2014 and posted here on receipt. On April 16th I was informed that the decision will be made on April 28th, 2014.

Monetary claims in total were: 2822000 SEK 

All documents of the litigation will be posted as a manual for the next PhD students who dare to fight for their rights. So they will not make my mistakes. 

The only thing I want to say right now is about the student union(s) and so called student ombudsman. From my point of view it was their direct responsibility to be on the court hearings. They did not come. Now, my dear PhD students, you can see clear that student ombudsman and student union are only simulacra. Never trust them and never hope that they can help you. 

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Swedish lady-professors: how they fake CV

Frantic feminism in Sweden leads to tragic consequences for the country. In many fields only subjective judgement can be made about whether or not a woman fiercely promoted to the top-position is able to comply with her duties. However, in science the objective estimation can be done.

So, let’s look at the next example of a successful Swedish lady-professor: the current Vice-Chancellor of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 
A few excerpts from her CV (cited without edits):
Academic degrees
Professor (adj), SLU (1996-2002)
Associate professor (docent): SLU (1995)
PhD: Stockholm University (SU) (1987)
Prizes and awards
Honorary doctor at Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Canada
Honorary doctor at Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
! The Royal Gold Medal from the King of Sweden Carl XVI Gustaf for Outstanding Achievements in Agricultural Sciences
! The Golden Twig, The Swedish Forestry Association
Royal Society of Science
Royal Society of Arts and Sciences
Swedish Royal Academy of Agriculture and Forestry (KSLA)
In total about 100 publications, about one third are articles published in refeered journals in plant physiology, forestry and environment related high quality journals. The others are scientific book chapters,(including 5 as editor) proceedings from conferences, reports and information articles and reports.

Now let’s do a search in databases for the scientific achievements of this lady-professor:

AGRIS database: 39 documents  (click on the picture to enlarge)

ProQuest database: 22 documents 

SCOPUS database: 22 documents, h-index citation 5

ScienceDirect database: 9 documents

WEB OF SCIENCE database: 8 documents, h-index citation 5

LIBRIS database: 7 documents

PubMed database: 2 documents, h-index citation 5
Search summary:
Agris database: 39 documents found
ProQuest database: 22 documents found (only 17 of them – in peer reviewed)
Scopus database: 18 publications found, citation index – 5
ScienceDirect database: 9 publications found
Web of Science database: 8 publications found, citation index – 5
Libris database: 7 publications found
PubMed database (the most respectable in bioscience): 2 publications found

Now can anybody explain how a person with such poor scientific results can be awarded with “the Royal Gold Medal from the King of Sweden Carl XVI Gustaf for Outstanding Achievements in Agricultural Sciences”? How can she represent Swedish science in the numerous national and international advisory committees?

I decided not to puzzle over these questions, but ask directly. So I wrote one by one to the universities, organisations and agencies that granted this lady-professor with awards or honourable positions. The sample of the letter is below:
Faculty of Forestry

I shall appreciate if you would kindly provide information which my host university refused to share.
According curriculum vitae of Prof. S-F, currently appointed as a vice-chancellor of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, she was awarded with the title “honorary doctor” at Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia. Please, may I ask you to provide a copy of the decision on bestow of this honourable title? What particular scientific achievements of Prof. S-F yielded such reward?
The fact is that after Prof. S-F ignored my reports about misconducts I wondered about the reason of the rejection and made a small investigation. The results of my survey are enclosed.
Currently I am filled with suspicions that Prof. S-F’s grossly overstated the number of publications in her CV. She claimed to have “in total about 100 publications, about one third are articles published in refereed journals in plant physiology, forestry and environment related high quality journals.” However, a search gives only 18 publications and shockingly low h index of 5 points! To my humble point of view such level of scientific achievements corresponds maximum to the third year postdoc, but not to the honourable professor. My request for the additional information sent to the SLU, was ignored and this fact only reinforced my suspicions. I refuse to believe that the reason why Prof. S-F protected professors, who falsified research results, was because she might be guilty in similar misconduct.
Thus, I would be very grateful if you could dispel my suspicions and present me some evidences which would confirm that Prof. S-F earned the honorary title.
Thank you in advance!

Replies from addressees will be published as comments to this post. My humble investigation got reaction even from the lady-professor herself.

However, I address this post to the Swedish citizens who love their country. 
Does not it bother you that mediocrities enter Swedish scientific elite? 
Does not it resent you that they make Sweden look ridiculous on the international level? 
Do you not care that “professors” who lack both theoretical knowledge and practical experience decide on spending public money? 
Even for to a foreigner it is painful that generous public funding of Swedish science does not cause reciprocal response of gratitude from the scientific society.

March 19, 2014 23:30
Click to enlarge 
P.S. Few minutes ago another shocking fact fell into my hands!
Thanks to one true scientist from the University of British Columbia I got a link to the list of the people awarded with honorary degree conferred by UBC.
Here it is:

The Vice-Chancellor of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences is not on this list. 
Curiouser and curiouser!

P.P.S.  Further correction came from the University of British Columbia: SLU Vice-Chancellor has been awarded with honorary degree. It happened in 2014.  
The wording was the following: “a leading forestry scientist and professor who has held prominent positions and advisory roles at universities, public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and research institutions in Sweden and the European union. Her works spans many fields including environmental issues, plant physiology, cell biology and silviculture.”

Such wording makes me wonder whether the University of British Columbia checks the credentials of the nominees for their high awards. Viva La Internacional de La Incompetencia!

Sunday, 19 January 2014

Swedish lady-professors: how they do mutants.

Keeping blind eyes on huge spores

In Sweden the tree of feminism is such over-fertilized that it starts producing ugly fruits. In science it is notable the most. Women are fiercely promoted to become professors. Intellectual capacity and talent are not really important. So, the results look (i) ridiculously and (ii) abusively to all normal representatives of the female half of humanity. In the next few posts I’ll give some examples.

Someone might think that the Department of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology is an unfortunate exception from otherwise exemplary university.  One department is not an indicator of low competence of the whole university. I thought the same. However, the Department of Forest Mycology was the second place in the SLU, where I had a chance to work. My acquaintance with SLU began with a research group from the Department of Plant Biology led by lady-professor D. 
I was given a task to study a sporulation-deficient mutant of a plan pathogenic fungi Verticilium longisporum. As you can see from the name, this mutant fungal strain was unable to produce spores. Before the mutant came into my hands, lady-prof. D’s group has been working with it for quite a long time. 
So, I got two plates: on one was a dark grayish-black fungus (non-mutant, wild type) and on another – white fungus (the mutant form) (pic 1)
To mycologists: yes, fungi on my picture don’t look like the true Verticillium, but it was the best I could do lacking the drawing talent.
Pic. 1

Work started with transferring fungi on new plates. On this step strange things happened: plates with mutant strain were covered with small white dots. Hmm… I never grew fungi before, always worked with bacteria. But these white sports looked like fungal mycelium growing from a single spore. (pic 2)

Pic. 2

At that time I spent only few weeks at Sweden and I was 100% sure that at Swedish labs only the high-level experts work. So, if they told me that this was the sporeless mutant that means it was a sporeless mutant and it simple must not have spores. By the other hand, I was taught not to ignore the facts and facts in a form of white dots were growing all over the plates with supposed sporulation-deficient mutant. Hmmm… I showed strange fungi to lady-prof. D. She said with disgust: “Contamination!” (damn foreigners simple can’t work well enough).
Ok! I repeated the procedure with all possible precautions and made few control plates to check for contamination. All control petri dishes were clean, but plates with sporulation-deficient mutant were covered with snowballs again. We had another meeting with lady-professor, and she again confidently talked about contamination. 
Finally I asked one mycologist to look at white mutant under the microscope. He found that supposed sporeless mutant was entirely covered with huge well-developed spores. He said:” O! Such nice spores! What kind of fungi is it?” I said:” Sporulation-deficient Verticilium mutant” He immediately understood who the owner of these fungi was and that the news about high prolificacy of presumably sterile fungi would made terrible woman seriously unhappy. So he started babbling that he is not quite sure and it would be better if I consult someone else. Seeing so much fear in his eyes, I promised not mention his name to the terrible lady-professor.
On the next day  lady-professor's eyes flashed with anger, when I told her that the beloved sporeless mutant was actually the melanin-deficient one (pic. 3). Fungi just lacked the pigment (were albinos). 

Pic. 3
Lady-professor gritted her teeth and gave me another task, which happened to be even more amusing! 
I must say, that technicians in that department were brilliant. Then, it is even more puzzled how such things could happen. The only explanation I have is that lady-professor was as overweening as she was incompetent and being so she never paid attention to the opinion of the lab personnel.
Now think! If in the well-equipped lab, which for decades worked with the same fungi, people could not distinguish between spore-less and spore-white mutants, then how many potentially dangerous mutants did they produce? How many potentially dangerous forms did they fail to detect? By the way, they were all released to the Nature... 
Good Luck for the mankind is that this lady-professor worked with plant not human pathogens!

Monday, 7 October 2013

From a pinch of soil - to global lies!

In the previous post we started following a pinch of soil, which was brought to a lab. The goal was to find how many fungi live in this pinch. In a lab, where Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) is adopted, sample contamination with alien fungal DNA is prevented. Also, several controls are applied to ban false signals. The results obtained in such GLP-lab would be unpretentious, but truthful (pic.1 a). However, if the same soil sample ends up in the Departmentof Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, SLU it is ordained for a higher purpose! In the previous post we observed the process of cooking a meaty body out of a tiny soil sample. The aim was artificially generate as many fungal-like signals as possible.  The raw materials obtained in our Department by control-free practice look copious (pic.1, b).

Pic.1             a                                                     b

The next task is adding fashionable trends! Results must look not only huge, but also super modish. How this challenge is solved at our Department? By outsourcing!
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which helps to create the meaty raw results, was invented many decades ago. Now it becomes a routine analysis even in the most modest labs. PCR is technologically primitive: researcher just has to mix together several (from 3 to 7) liquids. That is all. It is as easy as installing screw-nuts (pic. 2).

Pic. 2 Only the most technologically simple procedure is done at the Department

Results produced by such simple method would be rejected with disgust by the upper crust peer-review journals.  To prevent such negative reaction, the simplicity of technology ought to be masked. So, raw PCR materials are packed into envelopes and sent to an external company for so called Next Generation Sequencing (pic3).

Pic. 3 Raw results are sent to external companies for modernization

Of course, next generation sequencing (more correctly, massive parallel sequencing) was not invented to mask forgeries, but nevertheless, has been effectively adopted for this job. The technology is modish and that is why – extremely expensive! If conventional analysis costs around 100$, theNext Generation Sequencing costs 10000$. Only rich labs can afford it. On this stage all rivals from the modest labs are eliminated from the competition. Despite the fact that contestants did the same analysis, they failed to pack it into luxurious wrapper.
When results come back after the Next Generation Sequencing treatment they look huge and impressive(pic. 4)!
Pic. 4 When results arrive after modernization they look huge and imperssive

But what is more important – now results look very modern and extremely complicated (pic. 5). These monstrous results need special software to be handled and many hours of office-work.  The maintenance of this tortuous construction demand special people. These exceptional people talk on a cleverly jargon. The whole process became so exclusive, so high-tech looking, so trendy!  Who can possibly identify that this monstrous construction grew out of the tiny soil pinch with just four fungi living in it? 

Pic. 5 Next Generation Sequencing converts PCR-porridge into high-tech construction

Thursday, 15 August 2013

The cheapest way to get publishable results,

Or fungal hocus-pocus

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Swedish public invest huge resources into science. Swedish labs are rich and academia workers are well-fed. With such resources talented scientists can make useful discoveries or develop new technologies. Scientists that lack talent but still have dignity would at least provide the reliable & true results. What can you say about people, who spend huge resources to produce frauds?
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
I will explain the main trick, which for the decades helps the “scientists” at the Department of ForestMycology and Plant Pathology, Swedish University of AgriculturalScientists get publishable results.
The story starts when a sample of soil is taken from a forest or a field. In old time scientists, who studied soil did enormous work: they dug deep pits, brought huge soil specimens, and took many samples to ensure that result are true. Modern academia inhabitants bring a pinch of soil to the lab, grimacing fastidiously even at this tiny amount of the real nature (see all the modern publications: 0.5 g and very rare 1 g of soil is used). From this point already a study loses realism. But who says that modern academia inhabitants care about realism? They care about “publishable results” (the favorite expression in modern academia)! So, although the pinch of soil cannot provide reliable results, it is enough to give the odor of environmental study. Now the task is to cook up the body.  
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
So, a tiny sample arrives to a lab. Let's assume that this pinch of soil has 4 fungal species living there (pic 1). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Pic 1
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
The first step is to extract fungal DNA from soil. In a good lab researchers will prevent that any other fungi would contaminate the sample (pic 2)
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Pic 2
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
In fraud-generation lab the point is to enrich samples! Fungi that live in a lab, or on human skin is only the minor source of contamination. Plus, they can be easily recognized as human-associated and will be interpreted as a sign of poor lab practice. The better source of contamination is required. And in our Department this source has been successfully created and maintained for decades! This source are the ghost fungi. The advantage of the ghost fungi are that they can be produced in the lab during the routine analysis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
The thing is that the amount of DNA extracted from a pinch of soil is so tiny that it cannot be detected. Thus this amount of DNA must be increased artificially up to detectable level. DNA amplification is done with so called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR increase the amount of DNA approximately in 230 times. In other words, instead of one original molecule of DNA there will be 230 copies of this molecule after the reaction. PCR is an amazing tool in a knowledgeable hands. Unfortunately, as any powerful tool in the absent of control it can serve for mischiefs. DNA copies produced during PCR are very stable and can survive months if not years under lab environments. In the good labs leaking of DNA copies from test tubes is strictly prohibited. In my home lab it was not allowed even to open tubes with DNA copies. If anybody forgot about the taboo, this unmindful person would spend a week cleaning with a toothbrush every millimeter of the lab where the crime was done, corridors and all neighbor labs. But in the Department of Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology  DNA copies from all tests are dis-incarcerated. Tubes with DNA copies are left open. In few hours they dry into dust every speck of which contains trillions DNA copies (pic 3). This DNA dust spreads across by seriously looking people in white coats, darting between labs. Finally, all labs are heavily populated with the ghosts – copies of fungal DNA from all previous experiments.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Pic 3

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Under such haunted environments all new samples will be contaminated (pic 4).
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Pic 4
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
But this level of contamination is still too little for the impressive results. Don't worry! The same PCR that helps to produce ghosts will help to obtain required results!
Well, now our sample with four fungal species undergoes PCR. If PCR analysis is done correctly, 4 fungi that were in the original sample will give 4 signals. Several types of control are used to prevent possible errors (pic 5).

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Pic 5
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
In fraud-generating lab all controls are canceled and all errors are welcomed. Polymerase chain reaction has a highly creative nature and can join DNA molecules into combinations that never exist in the Nature. These new DNA-creatures even in scientific jargon are called chimeras. In addition to chimeras, PCR can create other types of monsters. As a result from 4 fungi, which originally inhabited the sample and 6 ghosts that arrived later, it is possible to get hundreds different signals (pic 6). In the end, it will look like not 4 but hundreds fungi lived in the original pinch of soil. In the publications the DNA copies from all PCR-monsters will be named “unculturable fungi” and their DNA copies will be saved in special repositories as a treasure.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Pic 6
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Now results already start looking impressive! 
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Compare: the correct procedure can provide only 4 fungi and to get such pauper result researcher needs sweating in the lab, preparing all kind of controls, preventing contamination and repeating analysis if errors are detected. In contract, control-free, quality-careless practice brings meaty results and demands very little efforts.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Well, this is just one reason why this mis-practice has been adopted at the Department. The other reasons need special consideration and will be discussed later.

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Thursday, 27 June 2013

Single-skill professor

In the previous post I gave an example of the inferior research performed under the management of my former supervisor. The major reason for such low level research is the absence of deep and profound knowledge of the methods in use. My former supervisor memorizes the terminology, but the words stay meaningless for him. He could make sentences using the terms, but anyone who works with the method would notice that behind his talk there is no understanding. Students cannot count on such supervisor when they need a practical help. Even worse, it is not possible to explain to such supervisor any problem or obstacle that arise in the lab work. However, my former supervisor found an effective method to mask the absence of competence – he played “ a good guy”! He was not your supervisor anymore, he was your friend. On the meetings he would talk about his family, relatives, home matters, traveling, conferences and it would be impossible to attract his attention to the problems related to the research.  

I see a serious discrepancy between how much the fake professors really understand and the level of understanding that is needed to do modern research. Last time when most of professors worked in a lab was approximately 10-30 years ago! The methods they used being a young researchers already died away or were transformed considerably. However, they never practice any lab skills anymore and never care to attend any courses on new methods. Even if phony professors devote a bit of his time for reading, they have not enough practical experience to separate the wheat from the chaff and blindly believe everything that is published. In addition, they don't have any clue about how much time lab work takes. Under such supervision only students who can produce required results in unrealistic time scale can succeed. Ancient-skilled supervisors have no ability to control the work or to check the results. So they gladly accept all nonsenses, especially if any “statistical significance” is produced. Thus, ignorant supervisors became fraud-generators.
Under healthy environment, dummy professors would be suppressed by normal scientists, who can question frauds, smile at the incompetence and who always can win the scientific discussion with the phonies. In Sweden, however, discussions are not welcome. This restriction applies also to any scientific debates. And when the culture of the scientific dispute dies, the ignorance easily triumphs!