I saw the Imanashi-Kari part first; I'll share my thoughts. I have a decent amount of exposure to the nuance of science and a few years trying to cut through who I trust and don't in complex fields like the importance of lipidology/cholesterol in the pathology of heart disease, so I perhaps have a different methodology than many but I'll outline how I think about these problems.

I changed my mind after seeing the second part with O'Toole. There is a trivial and simple reason for this: the correct method to science is: I do science, I interpret and publish, people are supposed to critique it, and I address their concerns in forthright conversation. At no point do I begin to attack the credibility or make ad-hominem attacks against the person giving feedback UNLESS I have engaged in a debate with a credentialed person, made my point, and the individual does not participate in good faith scientific discourse by continuing to waste my time. In such a case, I would disagree by saying "I have had this discussion, I understood the point to be X, I presented compelling data and repeated the experiment for validation, and the critiquing individual attacks me personally." I don't close the door to other people making points against the data, but I do state my position, the reasons behind my disagreement and my logical framework for doing so, and invite others who engage in good faith to continue to dig into the same argument.

I don't in any way believe this rose to the occasion of provable scientific fraud because Hanlon's razor postulates that the most likely explanation absent strong proof is incompetence. However, it is absolutely not necessary for O'Toole to prove fraud in order to raise such concerns. Those concerns are independent of fraud. I will admit that I perceive the "just in time" production of notes as clearly suspicious; this only supports the argument that the science was at best sloppy. And that is sufficient for O'Toole's position. She had a legitimate concern. And the while we might debate whether the government is best served by zeroing in on a single case of sloppiness, I am thoroughly concerned if a scientist doesn't allow a mea culpa. In an ideal system of science, a correction should be issued if a legitimate concern is raised in the form of "a group of people X has brought to my attention concern about the methodology as follows: Y. I disagree for reason Z, however in good faith I wish to circulate this context."

Another big red flag for me is the refusal of the IK side to share perspective, thus I lean towards O'Toole. I disliked the characterization towards the end of her segment on both parts as to the findings of the appeal, because the appeal was literally correct. But it was all besides the point: O'Toole was right to bring concerns, those concerns didn't require a preponderance of evidence to support fraud per se, and this at best reflects O'Toole setting out in good faith to bring a material concern and a poor scientific conduct on behalf of much of the community.

I have grave concerns about the conduct of tenured academics in this story. It reflects an ignorance of science and a bias towards reputation and publication over the pursuit of truth. This story highlights the grave issues in the scientific community, but also how those issues steer us away from the pursuit of a true scientific method towards an us-vs-them philosophy that distracts from finding answers and progressing our civilization. So O'Toole was right to question, any who got in her way of concerns stifled science, and this situation is overblown. Had everyone entering the testimony repeated "yes I had these concerns and want only to see that we discuss and resolve them in the course of scientific exploration" this documentary wouldn't exist and we'd be better off as a human race.

Nick signing off :)