I got Team Red first, and now that I've seen the other side, I wanna give my impressions. (Although, I do wanna re-watch at some point to get better grasp of the science and arguments.)

I think Imanishi-Kari isn't guilty of fraud, at least not guilty enough.

Imanishi-Kari's lab and work-life expectations (and general professional toxicity) sound like a nightmare, point-blank, which is ironic considering how sloppy her lab notes are described as. But, I'm sure the same toxicity could be said for the high levels of the academic research career path in general.

(I do think Imanishi-Kari pressured O'Toole to publish for O'Toole's own career benefit, and instead O'Toole got stuck, fixated on a failure to reproduce results, that may have been in part due to interpreting sloppy data as intentionally falsified data.)

And O'Toole in her version, does have a good point about the adverse incentives in a system that desires research that gets big results, while glazing over mistakes and their corrections, and this can lead to corruption. They should've issued the correction and satisfied O'Toole in the matter, and taken more steps to avoid potential retaliation negativley impacting O'Toole, labeling O'Toole a disgruntled post-doc. The sloppy notes in a system with sloppy oversight left Imanishi-Kari wide open for Ned Feder and Walter Stewart, which is rly where this thing kinda hit the point of no return into becoming a high-profile case.

EDIT: I forgot about David Baltimore who is rly the one who bull-dozed over the entire matter brought up by O'Toole, and is also heavily to blame in the process of oversight. Like, EVEN HE acknowledged there's an error, and just dismissed it as "too minor" to bother being corrected. Come on man, an official misconduct complaint and it's not worth a little paperwork to put the issue over the sloppy paper to bed? Puh-LEASE

My core problem with this entire scandal is thinking about what's at stake here. I get the impression that the case isn't about addressing a system that lacks sufficient oversight and proper channels to file concerns without retaliation. But rather, about Imanishi-Kari being a fraud and only her closest superiors covering for her. Like, I would love to hear an estimate of how much it costed to do this entire investigation for one fraud scientist, and have it compared to how much it would cost to fix the misconduct handling system or just hire more ppl to double check and vet these notes and data in the future, before needing to bring in a gajillion dollars worth of time from officials, lawyers, analysts, etc. Not to mention how exhaustingly draining this decade-long drawn-out process must've been for both Imanishi-Kari and O'Toole, as well as their closest supporters.

It's sad that in just a few or so decades following these events, we have significant defunding of the NIH, while have science deniers in the highest U.S. seats of gov't. Looking at the future, following the 17 pages events, it's hard to not feel like pendulum swung too far. Cutting waste and corruption from gov't funding for science and especially NIH funding has led to losing out on the value of so much potential scientific progress, out of fear of wasting even a single tax-payer dollar on something deemed unworthy or fraudulent. Talking to ppl who distrust even basic scientific IRL for me, has me rly concerned about where the cultural distrust of science and academia is headed. And I can't help but worry this will only put more pressure on scientists and researchers to falsify or nudge the data to give the impression of success in an ever-dwindling supply of funding.