Why would he admit fraud? You really are a silly person. Have you gone through the paper that was posted? Of course these things can never be proven conclusively, but we can use deductive reasoning to build a "most likely scenario" can't we? Or is that not allowed in your bubble as a "journalist" ??
The guy won the Noble Prize for a reason, stop acting coy and protecting him.
Why would he admit fraud? You really are a silly person. Have you gone through the paper that was posted? Of course these things can never be proven conclusively, but we can use deductive reasoning to build a "most likely scenario" can't we? Or is that not allowed in your bubble as a "journalist" ??
The guy won the Noble Prize for a reason, stop acting coy and protecting him.
I am not saying he would admit fraud. That is not how fraud is documented. It's documented through establishing prior knowledge. And fraud is generally not committed by an individual scientist. Mullis never owned the PCR. As work under hire, it was the property of Cetus, which sold it for $300 million. Mullis was given a $10,000 honorarium.
Why would he admit fraud? You really are a silly person. Have you gone through the paper that was posted? Of course these things can never be proven conclusively, but we can use deductive reasoning to build a "most likely scenario" can't we? Or is that not allowed in your bubble as a "journalist" ??
The guy won the Noble Prize for a reason, stop acting coy and protecting him.
I am not saying he would admit fraud. That is not how fraud is documented. It's documented through establishing prior knowledge. And fraud is generally not committed by an individual scientist. Mullis never owned the PCR. As work under hire, it was the property of Cetus, which sold it for $300 million. Mullis was given a $10,000 honorarium.