"This scientist obviously made a name for himself by conducting proper science, and then misused the authority he'd thereby been granted for whatever unknown reason (perhaps for personal renown, or perhaps for nationalistic reason, or whatever)."
OK. Maybe I'm being too opaque here.
HOW DID IT GET PAST PEER REVIEW?
Peer review is the golden gate past which nothing false should normally enter.
IT OBVIOUSLY GOT PAST PEER REVIEW BECAUSE WHOEVER WAS ENDORSING HIS FRAUDULENT DATING CLAIMS WAS ACCEPTING THEM ON THE BASIS OF HIS PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED REPUTATION THAT HE CHOSE TO MISUSE. IT DID NOT HOWEVER GET PAST PEER REVIEW INDEFINITELY, BECAUSE IT WAS PRECISELY PEER REVIEW THAT ULTIMATELY EXPOSED HIS FRAUD.
Do you comprehend now, or do you need bigger letters? BTW, all my answers are essentially a variation of post #110, so please just refer back to it unless you have something new to ask.
Same way non-bacterial origins of ulcers did.
Human error.
Scientists recognize it and deal with it as fast as possible.
As I have said several times.
Why do you seem to have a problem with this concept?