{"id":25373,"date":"2025-07-03T12:10:47","date_gmt":"2025-07-03T10:10:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/?p=25373"},"modified":"2025-07-18T09:40:10","modified_gmt":"2025-07-18T07:40:10","slug":"the-sudhof-nomenclature","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/sciencesurf\/2025\/07\/the-sudhof-nomenclature\/","title":{"rendered":"The S\u00fcdhof Nomenclature"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Blurred as I have no image rightsSource: https:\/\/www.faz.net\/aktuell\/wissen\/medizin-nobelpreistraeger-thomas-suedhof-wie-boese-ist-wissenschaft-110567521.html<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The video can be found at the Lindau Mediathek<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Here is my annotated list of excuses numbered as SUEDHOF1, SUEDHOF2, …,. SUEDHOF15 in chronological order.<\/p>\n

Is this really “an unprecedented quality initiative” as F.A.Z. Joachim M\u00fcller-Jung<\/a> wrote?<\/p>\n

IMHO this looks more like a larmoyant defense but form your own opinion now.<\/p>\n

\n

SUEDHOF1 <\/span>\u201cI’m not a chemist, so I’m not going to talk about science directly.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This is a weak deflection. As a Nobel laureate in a scientific discipline, he carries a responsibility to engage rigorously with broader scientific issues\u2014especially those affecting public trust and integrity.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Expertise in a narrow field does not excuse disengagement from systemic issues in science.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF2 <\/span>\u201cThe mistakes in our papers are due to digital image processing artifacts, not fraud.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Blaming technology doesn\u2019t absolve responsibility. Labs must maintain strict protocols as tools evolve. Oversight and verification should adapt accordingly.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Image-processing artifacts are a foreseeable risk, not an exoneration.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF3 <\/span>\u201cAI software is now able to find issues nobody would have noticed otherwise.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This advances science, not hinders it. Better detection tools are a step forward, not a reason to dismiss errors as inconsequential.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Enhanced scrutiny is progress\u2014not an excuse.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF4 <\/span>\u201cThe accused errors don\u2019t affect the conclusions and seem absurd to fake intentionally.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Scientific integrity doesn’t rest solely on intention. Errors, even unintentional, undermine credibility and demand correction.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Absence of intent does not absolve responsibility for accuracy.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF5 <\/span>\u201cCollaborators became collateral damage in the scrutiny, which inflates the perception of misconduct.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Widespread issues implicating multiple labs suggest systemic lapses in research oversight\u2014not just collateral fallout.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> When many collaborators are affected, the problem is likely structural.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF6 <\/span>\u201cWe\u2019re in a new era where everything is scrutinized\u2014even by amateurs and algorithms.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Openness and scrutiny are core to science. Lamenting increased transparency suggests resistance to accountability.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Increased scrutiny is essential, not a threat.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF7 <\/span>\u201cSome images were inserted incorrectly by mistake\u2014we couldn\u2019t tell them apart ourselves.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

If experts can\u2019t distinguish correct data, how can peer reviewers or readers trust the findings? This indicates deeper flaws in quality control.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Inability to catch errors points to insufficient internal oversight.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

SUEDHOF8 <\/span>\u201cStatistical errors like pseudo-replication are common and not misconduct.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Prevalence doesn\u2019t make bad practice acceptable. Misleading statistical methods compromise conclusions, regardless of intent.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> \u201cCommon\u201d errors are still errors.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF9 <\/span>\u201cReanalyses misunderstood our methods; our approach was acceptable in the field.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Field norms evolve, and acceptable doesn’t always mean rigorous. Transparency and willingness to adapt are crucial.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Methodological defensiveness isn\u2019t a substitute for clarity and rigor.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF10 <\/span>\u201cScience is inherently variable\u2014different results don\u2019t mean irreproducibility.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

True, but vague variability can’t be used to brush off inconsistencies. Proper reproducibility requires controlled variation, not chaos.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Reproducibility and variability are not mutually exclusive.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF11 <\/span>\u201cFraud exists but is rare and inevitable because science is a human activity.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Accepting fraud as inevitable risks normalizing it. Scientific systems must minimize opportunities for misconduct, not excuse it.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Human nature isn\u2019t a shield against accountability.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF12 <\/span>\u201cMost retractions, including ours, are for minor issues\u2014not because the conclusions are wrong.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

If figures are faulty, confidence in conclusions erodes. Reproducibility depends on complete integrity of data\u2014not just overall narrative.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Faulty details undermine trustworthy conclusions.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF13 <\/span>\u201cThe journal system pushes us to overreach.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Researchers still choose to exaggerate. Blaming journals deflects personal responsibility for claims made in published work.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Journals may incentivize overreach, but authors remain responsible.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF14 <\/span>\u201cScience is underpaid and undervalued, especially for postdocs and professors.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Compensation issues are real\u2014but they don\u2019t excuse lapses in research standards. Integrity should be independent of salary.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Low pay doesn\u2019t justify low rigor.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

SUEDHOF15 <\/span>\u201cWe should communicate better, but public criticism (like letters or appeals) isn\u2019t useful.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Public critique is part of scientific discourse. Dismissing it sidelines legitimate accountability efforts.<\/span> Summary:<\/span><\/span> Transparency and open dialogue are essential to reform.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n

Thomas S\u00fcdhof blends legitimate structural critiques\u2014on pay, publishing pressure, and statistical complexity\u2014with a pattern of <\/span>defensiveness and minimization<\/span><\/span>. While he correctly calls for nuanced understanding of science’s limitations, his excuses often sidestep <\/span>direct responsibility<\/span><\/span> and risk <\/span>undermining the very accountability<\/span><\/span> that sustains public trust in research. Strong leadership would embrace scrutiny, not diminish it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ad hominem arguments – showing images of offending scientists like Elisabeth Bik and Leonid Schneider – were certainly not helpful.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Disclaimer – Although dispised by S\u00fcdhof, I used some LLM for video transcription, and another one for interpretation and\u00a0 language correction.<\/p>\n\n

 <\/p>\n

\n CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 27.04.2026<\/span>\n <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The video can be found at the Lindau Mediathek. Here is my annotated list of excuses numbered as SUEDHOF1, SUEDHOF2, …,. SUEDHOF15 in chronological order. Is this really “an unprecedented quality initiative” as F.A.Z. Joachim M\u00fcller-Jung wrote? IMHO this looks more like a larmoyant defense but form your own opinion now.   CC-BY-NC Science Surf … Continue reading The S\u00fcdhof Nomenclature<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[5062,5056],"class_list":["post-25373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy-of-science","tag-birkenstock","tag-thomas-sudhof"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25373"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25373\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25467,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25373\/revisions\/25467"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wjst.de\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}