Talk:Alan Cooper (biologist)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alan J. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707133231/http://arc.gov.au/pdf/2004_ff/2004Fed_Fellows_Biosv2.pdf to http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/2004_ff/2004Fed_Fellows_Biosv2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alan J. Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://riaus.org.au/people/alan-cooper/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311210410/http://arc.gov.au/media/FL14/Alan%20Cooper.pdf to http://www.arc.gov.au/media/FL14/Alan%20Cooper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141122121805/http://www.arc.gov.au/default.htm to http://www.arc.gov.au/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150310092439/http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/FT09/FT09_allstates_orgs.pdf to http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/FT09/FT09_allstates_orgs.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141122121805/http://www.arc.gov.au/default.htm to http://www.arc.gov.au/default.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141122121805/http://www.arc.gov.au/default.htm to http://www.arc.gov.au/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Single-purpose account actively editing this article

It appears that User:1884e has only edited this article and no others since creation in mid-December 2019. It is unclear what the aim of this account is, but I invite @1884e: to address the matter here. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Content Dispute in WP:BLPArticle

There appears to be 2 Single purpose accounts User:Andersjames0921 and User:1884e reverting to there own versions hence raised COI and NPOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Note it appears that the subject was dismissed as director of the University of Adelaide’s Australian Centre for Ancient DNA

• Bullying allegations lead to firing of prominent ancient DNA expert Science (journal)
• Prominent NZ scientist Alan Cooper sacked after bullying probe in The New Zealand Herald

There dispute is over this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this User:1884e account (I have another less anonymous account) is undoing the regular whitewashing by User:Andersjames0921 who is very close to the subject of this article. The subject of the article was dismissed from the University of Oxford (2005) after he "violated the university’s code of practice on academic integrity in research" in relation to "material included in grant applications" (https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/oxford-dna-lab-leaderless-48729). "the university conducted an internal investigation of allegations that he fabricated data in grant applications" (https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/university-of-adelaide-investigates-ancient-dna-lab-66187). Editor User:Andersjames0921 has repeatedly removed these facts and sources from the WP article. The Scientist is a reputable magazine and the articles are by established and reputable journalists. The subject of the article was dismissed from the University of Adelaide (2019) after a long investigation into allegations of bullying. Editor User:Andersjames0921 has also repeatedly removed the reference to a very pertinent and informative article in the scientific journal Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02540-5). All this information is based on reputable sources, not blog posts as claimed by editor User:Andersjames0921. My intention is not to add "constantly negative, or sensationalist, edits" (121.45.118.11), but undo the removal of publicly reported factual information.1884e (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The sourcing for events at Adelaide looks rock solid, and any attempt by User:Andersjames0921 to remove any of this should be resisted. The sourcing for events at Oxford is less good, and I would prefer to see a second source, but even as it stands looks good enough to say something. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I thought I'd note this New Zealand Herald article on the suspension, to demonstrate that this aspect of his career is not just getting coverage in the science press (what we Americans would call "inside baseball".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC) @Pharaoh of the Wizards: My apologies for somehow missing that you'd already noted a Heald article which serves that purpose. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added this article as it also discusses his suspension prior to his dismissal. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires a very high standard of reliability for claims of this nature. As an interim measure, I have redacted a long stretch of recent edits. Before any of this material is reinstated, everyone involved needs to discuss the matter carefully on the talk page (i.e., here). Anyone who puts the accusations in question back into the article without a good-faith discussion and consensus risks being blocked for edit warring. Please keep in mind that edit warring is unacceptable even if you are convinced you are in the right and others are wrong. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Richwales: And it's been discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Problems_with_single_editor_applying_persistent_negative_edits_to_my_wiki_BLP_-_how_do_I_prevent_this? as well as here. So far, the opposition for inclusion of material sourced to that ever-present bugaboo of unreliable sources, the magazine Nature and its website, has been someone representing himself as the subject, and he hasn't been claiming its false, and the edit comments of an SPA who was claiming Nature was a blog and thus not a reliable source. Your edit reinserted unsourced claims about the subject that editors had cleared, and prevented hardworking editors from accessing their work, as well as from accessing the edits that would let them show the problems with the SPA who was whitewashing the material. Please undo your edit, restore access to the history of this article, and if you wish to be involved in the discussion, enter with discussion rather than threats. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It is truly extraordinary that reporting the contents of articles at Nature (journal) such as Head of prestigious ancient-DNA lab suspended amid bullying allegations, ‘Paralysed by anxiety’: researchers speak about life in troubled ancient-DNA lab, and Head of ancient-DNA lab sacked for ‘serious misconduct’ is considered somehow controversial. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

And if for some reason you don't like Nature (journal) there's also Science (journal) which reports Australian university suspends ancient DNA expert Alan Cooper as part of workplace investigation and Bullying allegations lead to firing of prominent ancient DNA expert. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, all that is well and good, maybe you can suggest a paragraph based on those sources. Guy (help!) 09:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Richwales, appear toi have suppressed rather than revdeleted. I would prefer revdel, as that way more admins can look at the edits. Guy (help!) 09:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I quite understand that some of the intermediate versions during the edit war between two SPAs might well have needed revdel, but the versions that NatGertler and I were working on were pretty uncontroversial and well enough sourced to form a starting point. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan A Jones, I have no view on that because I can't see the suppressed content. I trust NatGertler though and would be surprised if any gross issues were introduced by him - however, often in these cases the issue is with other content within the article. Guy (help!) 10:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand that, but I don't feel that there is any point in making suggestions for future edits until an uninvolved administrator has managed to see the versions prior to the sudden clampdown. If you do manage to see them, then as discussed above NatGertler and I agreed that sourcing for events at Adelaide was solid (though some of the sources indicated above may be preferable to the sources we used in earlier versions) but that sourcing for events at Oxford is weaker. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Please note the The University of Adelaide official website lists A/Professor Jeremy Austin, Director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA as per this now the article states that Alan Cooper is the head which is wrong.He was first suspended in August 2019 as per ABC News (Australia) in this and Professor Jeremy Austin has been head since. I agree with NatGertler and Jonathan A Jones above on the sourcing .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Pharaoh of the Wizards for removing the unsourced awards, though much of it is still in the infobox. Note that at least some of this can be sourced to Nature articles mentioned above, e.g. ‘Paralysed by anxiety’, if anyone is feeeling brave. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, many of the awards (mostly the more recent half) were sourced before the Great Reversion. The older ones were not... and in any case, the infobox is overstuffed and even if they all could be sourced, it should probably be reducing to the most significant five or so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be enough solid reliable sourcing to add… “Cooper was the the leader and founder of The University of Adelaide’s ancient-DNA centre, but was suspended following a workplace investigation."[1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6].Theroadislong (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two (related) events. The August coverage says he was suspended (i.e., taken out of the position of authority on a non-permanent basis), but that that was so the investigation could take place. The December sources say he was fired following the investigation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes correct so we can say "but was suspended and then fired following a workplace investigation." We don't need to go into any more detail. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I recall, what we had before the great suppression was something like "Cooper was suspended in August 2019 following allegations of bullying, which he denied [refs], and was subsequently dismissed for serious misconduct [refs]." All of which is perfectly sourceable. I'm happy to say less if people prefer, though if we give the titles of the obvious sources then it's tantamount to that text anyway. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

What Road Is Long suggests may be a sufficient summary for the lead, but it should be meatier for the body, at least as much as JAJ suggests (although I see the argument coming that the finding does not state that the misconduct was bullying, and that otherwise we just have accusations.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

My text and reference placement was carefully chosen to avoid WP:SYN so we should be safe on that count. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't concerned about SYN (I thought you did a good job being clear); I was thinking more that someone would try to hold this to the standards we have for someone accused of a crime, where we're discouraged from including accusations unless there is at least a charge, and better a conviction. Me, I'm fine with it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I have changed my earlier "suppression / oversighting" of the material in question and downgraded it to "revision deletion". It is still, for the moment, invisible to non-admins, but any admin can see the deleted material now and may, at their discretion, make it fully visible once again. My intention was to act quickly to protect Wikipedia from damage resulting from possibly defamatory material in the midst of an edit war, and I still believe this was a valid concern, but it is clear that I overreacted, and I offer apology to those who were justifiably rattled. I would still caution everyone involved that edit warring — even (or perhaps especially) in the midst of an ongoing discussion — is not a constructive way to handle a situation; nor is socking, which inherently generates reasonable suspicion of bad faith; anyone who feels he/she has a justifiable reason to need to use an alternative account in a contentious situation should strongly consider discussing the matter with a checkuser or an arbitrator (see WP:ALTACCN). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for having taken a second thought on this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've looked at it and, pace Richwales, it's negative but not irredeemable. It doesn't reflect badly on you, anyway, NatGertler. I would say the next step is a decently sourced paragraph on Talk here about the case, which, given the sourcing above, should be a shoo-in, then we can discuss whether and how it should be reflected in the lead (which I suspect it should). Nobody could accuse you or I of being agenda-driven single purpose accounts. I don't blame Rich for doing this - we get serious complaints and have to act seriously when we do - but there's no reason to exclude something that has this level of sourcing. Guy (help!) 08:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Thanks. Since you have access to the revision before the reworking, can you look at possibly restoring everything that wasn't matters of concern? There's a lot of things unrelated to the controversial matters that got lost - sourcing of awards, in particular. (Maybe other things; I didn't memorize it before it went away.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a stripped back (by JzG or some other admin) version of one of the revisions from 19th or 20th March would be a great improvement on the current version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've restored to full public view the last revision prior to my earlier intervention ([7]). If this doesn't give people the material they need to see, let me know. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Perfect. Many thanks, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This conversation seems to have gone stale, leaving the article in this state is unacceptable, as it doesn't really cover the most important parts of his career. Can I suggest an addition: From 2001 to 2005 Alan was director of the Henry Wellcome Ancient Biomolecules Centre at Oxford University he was dismissed in 2005, allegedly for faking data for grant applications (with refs) He subsequently became head of the newly established University of Adelaide’s Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, in August 2019 he was suspended after allegations of bullying, which he denied, in December 2019 he was terminated “for reasons of serious misconduct.” I think that the faking data bit can be removed if other contributors object, as the ultimate source (balter) is a self published blog, I don't think he's lying but I understand the need for stringent criteria in BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

For now I wouldn't want to say anything about why he left Oxford, though yes we should say that he was director there. I think we are close to a consensus on the Adelaide text. I'll have a go at drafting a final referenced proposal. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Factual accuracy and POV

I am about to tag this article for factual accuracy and POV problems as the recent edit by Richwales has reinserted the claim that "He is the director of the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide, South Australia", which is not currently true, and whitewashed away that he was let go and the circumstances surrounding that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC) Also added BLP Sources tag, as claims like that he is a pioneer are unsourced. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

As the claim about his current status has been removed, I have removed the factual accuracy tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Birthdate sourcing problem

The birthdate is sourced to this page, which is a dead link, and someone just reasonably pointed to the archive.org page for that link. However, that archive does not have the birthdate, and I presume that the original, now-dead webpage didn't either. Rather, the birthdate was presumably in a PDF article that was linked to on that web page... and that PDF is not stored at archive.org (nor at the original source.) So either a different archiving source needs to be used, or the birthdate should be sourced elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The article Interview with Alan Cooper (paywalled) has "Where and when were you born? I was born in 1966 in Dunedin, in New Zealand, and grew up in Wellington." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new Lead and Career section

Alan Cooper (born 1966) is a New Zealand evolutionary molecular biologist and an ancient DNA researcher. He is considered a significant figure in the field of ancient DNA, and was involved in many of the early discoveries in the field. He was the inaugural director of both the Henry Wellcome Ancient Biomolecules Centre at the University of Oxford from 2001–2005, and the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide, South Australia from 2005–2019. In December 2019 he was dismissed from Adelaide for serious misconduct.

Career

In 1999, Cooper established the Henry Wellcome Ancient Biomolecules Centre at the University of Oxford and in 2002 was made Professor of Ancient Biomolecules at Oxford. In 2004, he was awarded an Australian Research Council (ARC) Federation Fellowship, and resigned from Oxford in 2005, moving to the University of Adelaide to establish the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA. At Adelaide, he led the Ancient DNA node of the Genographic Project examining human origins and dispersal from 2005–2010. He was awarded a series of ARC Fellowships: Federation (2005–2010), Future (2011–2014), and Laureate (2014–2019) researching human evolution and climate change. Cooper was suspended from the University of Adelaide in September 2019, following allegations that he bullied staff and students at the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, which he denied. He was dismissed in December 2019 for serious misconduct.

Research

No strong view on this.

References

Comments from other editors

That seems very reasonable and neutral, without going into sensational detail. Though I see you have added some sensational detail in the career section since my comment! Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No objections, looks good from here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Good work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I'm happy with that as a first draft, but please check everything and fix any reference format errors that remain before we move this to the article. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Theroadislong: that's why I had the "under construction" banner in the hope that people wouldn't comment until it was finished, but you were all too efficient! So please do feel free to revise any comments to reflect the current form. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Note also that I have left out ‘Paralysed by anxiety’: researchers speak about life in troubled ancient-DNA lab as even though this is well sourced it could easily be considered as sensationalist. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added that he is considered a pioneer in Ancient DNA, which I think is true and non-contentious, though I would like to hear others users comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine, but might be better to edit that into the proposed replacement text above so we can just do a block replace rather than a merge. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm claiming anything, saying someone is a "pioneer" in something is subjective, but in the nature article stating his dismissal it states "Cooper is a major figure in the field of ancient DNA, and has charted the migrations of prehistoric people and their domestic animals around the globe." and his google scholar citation list shows highly cited articles from the earliest days of ancient DNA in the late 1990's, including the first moa mitochondrial genome, I think "Pioneer" is a suitable term in this case, though perhaps "widely considered" is overegging it. It's clear that he is a significant person in the field and that should be reflected in the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"Widely considered" certainly would need to be sourced. I'd be more comfortable with saying that has has made noted advances in the field than saying he is a pioneer, which as you say carries a POV with it. But that's me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have changed it to "He is considered a significant figure in the field of ancient DNA, and was involved in many of the early discoveries in the field.", is that better? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We seem to have agreement on the text above from Hemiauchenia, Nat Gertler, and myself, but it would be useful to hear of any specific concerns from Theroadislong, or of course any other editors who haven't spoken yet. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll just add en dashes for the date ranges. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This is just a final check that nobody is still concerned about anything before implementing the changes above in the article itself Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I guess I'm fine with that, I'm more cautious, but be bold! Theroadislong (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Now done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Events at Oxford

While people digest the proposed text concerning events at Adelaide, I have been trying to find sources for events at Oxford. As previously noted these are much harder to find, and I am not currently proposing to include any of this, but still thought it useful to assemble what is out there in case we do decide to include something.

The earlier version of the article had

He resigned from Oxford the following year after an investigation into irregularities in a grant application.

References

and there was some rather inconclusive discussion about whether The Scientist was a good enough source.

Since then I have turned up an article One of Adelaide’s most high-profile academics, Professor Alan Cooper, accused of forging data by former Oxford colleague in The Advertiser (Adelaide) (behind a paywall, but I managed to see though it by starting with a tweet from the newspaper and opening the link in an anonymous browser) which contains quite explicit statements from Paul H. Harvey at Oxford.

Thoughts welcome! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Balter states that Paul Harvey provided the following statement to him: "Alan forged data (and my signature has Head of Department) in a grant application and lied. His group came to me with a catalogue of irrefutable evidence. I forwarded it all to the University and they took over the investigation. Alan left for Adelaide under a cloud." While Balter is self-published and cannot be considered a reliable source, this corroborates what is stated in the article: "“Alan forged data in a grant application and lied,” Prof Harvey said.“I forwarded it all to the university and they took over the investigation. Alan left for Adelaide under a cloud.” Which is literally word for word identical, (Balter's was published a few months earlier) so I think including it is fine, as it is a direct quote from someone who worked with him, in a reliable source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)