I'd treat this about the same as datasheets for mechanical or electrical parts.

When I buy an electronic component as a regular consumer I expect the datasheet "typical" values to be accurate 90% of the time. I can imagine larger industrial customers would really raise a stink if it's worse than that. However, any critical components in my circuit must be verified and "binned", and that's on me.

▲

mbreese 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is the thing. Yes, the marketing material is bad. But, no one in lab trusts an antibody just because of where you bought it. A new antibody always gets tested and validated before use.

That is to say, this looks bad for Thermo Fisher. But, that’s as far as the damage should go.

▲

H8crilA 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Why would you even generate fake pictures of this type? Don't you already have real ones? I mean, it's actually more work, unless you don't have the real ones.

	▲	mbreese 41 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I’m not going to defend Fisher here. It was a stupid thing for someone to do. But unless you’re in the field, you won’t realize exactly how big ThermoFisher actually is. They are the major supplier of everything for molecular biology work. From freezers (the Thermo part) to plates and pipettes (Fisher) to enzymes and antibodies. In many ways they are like Amazon. They sell everything. Some of it from outside companies, but a good deal of sales are from in-house brands. They could use their position as a reseller to know which products sell the best and with the highest margins. In a company of this size, it’s easy to have one group feel pressure and cheat on running the gels to confirm results. Particularly when the real results are ambiguous or dodgy. It’s not a good look, but I doubt it will put a dent in people from buying things (non-antibodies) from them.
	▲	butlike an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

swader999 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Would it be the same idea as an x ray of a critically welded part?