Category Archives: rock-star-scientist

Maria Lluch Senar: colors of the work correspondence, data manipulation

Remember the time when scientific debates were open and public?
Maria’s comment on the 3rd point below (all in red… doesn’t it ring a bell?) is extremely marvelous.
Don’t miss the moment of the new proteins discovery when she will find them*).
Especially after she finds someone to process concocted by herself Excel files of >100Mb, 15 spreadsheets each…
which are… ta-dam! — a «new format» © Maria Lluch Senar
— hand-made copy-pastes from standard mass spec files which were already processed.

Then ask yourself a fair question:
Why the hell the standardized files from the machine had to be concocted by Maria’s hand before the analysis and processing into the DB?
Why she was so eager to make her own «new format» though being utterly illiterate in the subject of standardization and data formats for analysis/DB processing?

So when you seem to be involved into a quite probable scientific misconduct (the negligent data making up, actually sheer data manipulation!) by a person who repeatedly lies, spreads slander and intrigues behind someone’s back — think about that you may become a scapegoat at the end. Even if you only get stained — it’s still the shame.
Yes, it is awkward to read…
But much more shameful thing is to be cowed by a person who makes her move up to the position she holds by a very questionable way.
And to realize why this her way up is so questionable and shameful for a scientist: enough to see how she avoids open discussion and open exchange of the opinions. Enough to have it experienced — of how she’s been craving to fuck K.’s brain claiming to be alone with herself.

When a person, who repeatedly stresses you out, disrupts your work and utterly unable to openly and constructively discuss the project with all involved parties — it’s freaking disgusting when the very same person also claims to have you alone with herself: indeed just to fuck you (your brain actually but when your brain is violently fucked — it hurts unbearably).

P.S. in this email below K’ words are only those of black font

Above we can see the favorite Maria’s trip up, used repeatedly in her emails to K.:
«If you think that changing the pipeline to consider the new format is not possible please let us know and we will find the way to implement it».

She’s been absolutely unable to perceive any explanations why her undoubtedly genius idea just would not work: her ignorant obtrusion of the way how the data analysis (which is not her expertise at all) should be technically carried out just must be accepted with complete obedience no matter how feasible it is to perform at least partially. As soon as you start bringing her technical reasoning, however best you try keeping patience etc — she gets aggressive almost immediately throwing at you here-above quoted her favourite trip up.

Literally: «I am the one with the scientific authority here — you only must listen and follow! You cannot follow my genius ideas? — Shut up! Fired!!»

Yet another money laundry case under the brand of so called MycoSynVac project generously funded by ERC (European Research Council).


*) Sure she found them! Her patron has arranged the publication «Unraveling the hidden universe of small proteins in bacterial genomes» with extensively advertising campaign «Revealing the role of the mysterious small proteins» all over sci-comm media — how do you like the titles? remember the bad science list about Research Misconduct? — the role is not revealed actually: see the paper, its heuristic modelling attitude…

Maria Lluch-Senar and Luis Serrano Research Misconduct and corruption in publications

— why «arranged»? — because they published it in Molecular System Biology EMBO journal, Luis Serrano is fostered there, in EMBL, he has many connections, including his good friend Peer Bork (see Serrano’s lecture on Youtube about Mycoplasma where he mentions that).
And Peer is a senior editor in Mol Sys Biol.
No scrutiny guaranteed!
BTW, Serrano also publishes his papers in Cell Systems, where he’s himself in editorial board.
Cosy, isn’t it?

Also try to find and make work the «Open Access»™ code used in the paper and written for it — check it out how it’s easy to get it and how well it corresponds to the results, so loudly advertised!

The desktop version of Phobius was used to predict any signal peptides and transmembrane segments in our predicted SEPs using default settings and only differentiating between gram positives and negatives.

«Some software and our “RanSEPs: Comprehensive unbiased prediction of small proteins in bacterial genomes” used to predict any signal peptides in our predicted small proteins» 🙂
Find this «Comprehensive unbiased prediction».
Please, mind the Bad science which, of course doesn’t mean you should be biased.
Just check it out: and your guess is correct — it’s not on GitHub or any other public open repository with versions and dates.

Do you really think that those who lie so heavily and cheat at ease can do good science?
But, sure, they can publish their science! They have all facilities for that, don’t they?

Full text of the email they quote in their dismissal notice

Subject: Re: MS data
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:20:49 +0100

Dear Maria,

I am sorry, I cannot comment on this.
I expect you respect your colleagues and able to communicate in a calm and professional manner by email and in person.

I see you do not understand the standardization subject and I am very able to prove it to a professional commission if its needed.
I also clearly see that you are getting passively aggressive and disrespectful, you are trying to undermine me on my professional field which is ridiculous and unacceptable. I think you have to apologize.

So I am sorry, I have nothing to ask you in person.

Regards, —
Catherine

— this was reply to the email quoted here-above (the one with the red font).

(signatures dimmed)
So the actual reason for the dismissal: you «must recognize the scientific authority of Maria as co-leader of the project and work under her direct supervision alone» otherwise you are fired. This is how these cool scientists do science now days.

Murky messages with messy content, several files of >10Mb sent by email, «new format» © Maria Lluch Senar represented by two >100Mb Excel files with 15 spreadsheets with hand copy-paste — to process all this shit into the DB and then harassing a professional who tries to explain how the data should have been processed — these are just ordinary examples from a routine intellectual work process (paid by public money) of a rock star scientist with «I have many publications» (another shining clause of her argumentation).

This rock star scientist which is unable to create on her own a single document (without her promoter), a literate email, to make a tiny bit effort to grasp one simple thing: what the standards are, — whatever you’re trying to explain her, however you try to reach for her mind — «in turn» © this person just harasses you and keeps claiming for recognition of her poor scientific authority. Remarkably all those harassments with these wretched claims were fully supported by the top manager of the scientific institution.

Intellectual reasoning? Logical reasoning? Whatever fair damn reasoning?
Come on, bow and scrape and thank Universe, that these so great scientists could not call for the authorized science gestapo to help them out: they have only fired you because you had dared to question the authority of a really cool scientist whose favorite trip up in reply on any reasoning on the subject was just: «If you cannot do this work let us know and we will look for another way to do that».
Which was exceptionally ridiculous for this really cool scientist because «them» had no clue whatsoever about any way how their data could be processed in particular and how the scientific data are usually processed into the DB as that was not their expertise whatsoever. But surely «they» had authority to impose on you any by-products from «their» so beautiful minds.
Because. You. Cannot. Period.
— intellect, culture, work ethic here are so blatantly demonstrated that you just lose the gift of speech…

Why the data analyst was coerced to work with concocted data and had been denied the direct contact with the data producers?
Do you ask yourself why that so damn bright scientist who, as we’re sure, is Maria Lluch, — why she was so eager to interfere between the data and a data analyst, why the hell she had to concoct that shameful hand made copy-paste Excel spreadsheets instead of allowing the professional to work with the data sources directly?
Why on the Earth she’s been so craving for that bow and scrape?
How the hell they spend public money then? — they hire a professional, perform their mobbing actions against her attacking her purely on personal ground (because there is no other space to attack her) during several months and at the end just fire her after more than 9 months without giving her any credit for the job she’s been doing for them.
Is it Franco’s style but modernized Spanish science or what??

And at the and — why the Staff Scientist Maria Lluch Senar and the CRG Director Luis Serrano Pubul had to lie so shamefully?

These are fairly good questions.

And finally, how come that taking the way of the apparent scientific misconduct was the easiest choice for them?…

picture is taken from this article on scientific misconduct: Scientific misconduct & its effect on the medical literature
(as much as it affects biomed sciences)

Here is my twitter account: @JWapatoo where I post current updates on this case and my relaxed attitude, i.e. after me being put under pressure and stress, it is naturally personalized unlike expressed as such while I am on duty where I’m restrained by professional standing rules and contract clauses.

«You should be stressed as you are still in initial closely watched period»
© Julia Ponomarenko
(4 months after start of the contract)

So these people don’t even give a care about the fact that a professional engineer, doing brainwork, can be only either productive or stressed.
Never both. Obviously, if results quality is to be provided.
Or, no need for data integrity in all this so playful scientific ambiance?

Or, these scientists — do they use their own brain for professional purposes?

P.S. CRG and Luis Serrano do support scientific fraud of their PI MP Cosma — please see by these links an article of Leonid Schneider and PubPeer comments.