Deepak Modi

Faculty @icmrnirwoh Developmental biology, infertility, embryo implantation, placentation, sex determination, TEdx speaker. Views expressed are personal

[Deepak Modi @DeepakNModi]

Publication alert
Proud to share our new placenta-on-chip platform published in Biofabrication
It is a team work with my student @anshulbhide1 done in collaboration with @abhijit_MLab @srv_mkjee
@ICMRDELHI @icmrnirwoh @iitbombay @pic_wrcb
https://t.co/9tUXvvXuzT
#organonchip

[David M. Sabatini @DMSabatini]

Because I no longer had most of my text messages, only via lengthy and costly discovery did the documents discussed in this deposition come to light

[Deepak Modi @DeepakNModi]

@d3ucemaximus @TedDanielnews and MIT too must do .. they are equally responsible

[Deepak Modi @DeepakNModi]

@BhondeRamesh thank you sir

[Deepak Modi @DeepakNModi]

Elated and humbled to be in the list of top reproductive health researchers in the country

https://t.co/X9M04QBRMq

[ScienceGuardians @SciGuardians]

🚨 BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES INSIDER INFLUENCE OVER MIT'S TENURE-REVIEW PROCESS IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.

🔱 NEW REVELATION — Court evidence exposes MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia's involvement in the selection of Sabatini's tenure-review committee

On 27 September 2021, Kristin Knouse exchanged messages with Izabella Pena following a conversation with @MIT Professor Sangeeta Bhatia.

The court-disclosed messages reveal Kristin Knouse telling Izabella Pena:

🔴 “Sangeeta just called”

🔴 “they even asked for insight into who to put on the committee”

🔴 “AND she said she will go to Rafael Reif’s office and protest the decision if and when needed.”

Pena responded:

“At least they are asking her insight”

Knouse replied:

“Exactly”

“This is good”

⚠️ The evidence exposes a troubling channel of insider influence surrounding MIT's tenure-review process.

These contemporaneous communications document that Knouse understood Bhatia to have been consulted about the committee's composition and to be prepared to challenge its eventual decision directly with MIT President Rafael Reif.

Rather than an independent review insulated from interested parties, the messages reveal access to the committee-selection process by an academic aligned with the complainant, raising serious concerns about institutional impartiality and conflicts of interest.

This disclosure adds another significant piece to the growing documentary record surrounding the institutional handling of Professor @DMSabatini's case.

📑 REVIEW THW ORIGINAL COURT EVIDENCE BELOW.

🔱 ScienceGuardians™ Legal and Investigative Team

MORE COURT EVIDENCE. MORE REVELATIONS. STAY TUNED. ⚠️

@SciGuardians 🔱

[TrueBlueSky @Raj45363031]

Sabatini’s case is a perfect example how DEI and the rest of the *left’s political crusades are so destructive to America.* The verdict vindicates Sabatini, who has long maintained that his accuser, Kristin Knouse, had lied. But the legal fight took years of his life and nearly ruined him financially. And it shouldn’t be the end of the story. The trial exposed how thin — and how rotten — MIT’s and Whitehead’s case against Sabatini had been all along. MIT and Whitehead owe the public a reckoning. The Trump administration must investigate MIT and Whitehead.

https://t.co/IU5tt1toRy

Reminds of how Justice Kavnaugh and family were torn apart by ruthlessly lying left liberals!! 😡😡😡

[David M. Sabatini @DMSabatini]

The pain and suffering and massive expense of the litigation was worth it not only for vindication by a jury of my peers but also to reveal exactly how scientific institutions decided not to follow due process (which is almost akin to scientific method)

[Deepak Modi @DeepakNModi]

@Rajankashya thank you

[Deepak Modi @DeepakNModi]

@Raghavan_Thiaga @biopatrika thank you

[David M. Sabatini @DMSabatini]

I always knew the process had been corrupt but only many years of costly discovery during the litigation led to the full picture

[Bill Ackman @BillAckman]

https://t.co/GuacJtDZpQ

[ScienceGuardians @SciGuardians]

🚨BOMBSHELL COURT EVIDENCE EXPOSES TROUBLING COORDINATION BETWEEN MIT AND WHITEHEAD LEADERSHIP IN THE DAVID M. SABATINI ORDEAL.

📑 We encourage readers to examine the original court exhibits and sworn testimony presented in Parts 1–5 of this thread.

⚠️ Sworn testimony and court exhibits reveal serious concerns surrounding @MIT's involvement in the institutional actions that devastated Professor @DMSabatini's scientific career.

Particularly troubling are documented communications between MIT (@ScienceMIT) Dean of Science Nergis Mavalvala and Whitehead Institute (@WhiteheadInst) Director Ruth Lehmann, revealing their expressed alignment over Sabatini's case before MIT's tenure-review process was completed.

Further court evidence raises serious concerns about outside pressure on MIT, potential conflicts of interest, and the failure to interview laboratory members who provided evidence favorable to Sabatini.

The court exhibits and sworn testimony expose serious deficiencies in MIT's purportedly independent tenure-review process, including documented alignment between senior institutional officials before the review was completed and the failure to interview laboratory members who offered evidence favorable to Professor Sabatini.

These revelations demand a comprehensive, independent investigation into MIT's institutional actions, the individuals involved, their communications, and any misconduct that contributed to the devastating consequences for Professor Sabatini.

📑 The original court evidence supporting these concerns is presented in Parts 1–5 below. We encourage the scientific community to examine it carefully.

⚖️ THE JURY'S VERDICT AND $6 MILLION DAMAGES AWARD SHOULD MARK THE BEGINNING, NOT THE END, OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

The verdict should serve as a catalyst for investigating MIT and the individuals whose actions may have contributed to Professor Sabatini's prolonged ordeal and the immense financial, professional, and reputational consequences he has endured.

🔱 MORE INVESTIGATIVE EXPOSÉS ARE COMING. STAY TUNED. ⚠️

@SciGuardians 🔱

[Jason Locasale @LocasaleLab]

MIT thinks it can put on a show claiming to value merit to keep the DOJ and the White House off its back.

David Sabatini’s case exposes that smokescreen. Their true colors were on display throughout his ordeal. Scientific excellence was disposable when it conflicted with their political priorities. They have hollowed out the science while continuing to trade on the reputation it built. Their real priorities are far removed from the excellence they advertise.

Excellent article from @mrddmia.

https://t.co/nXlkIWcDvZ

[Amit Paranjape @aparanjape]

Bengaluru physicist Ashoke Sen becomes first Indian to win Oskar Klein Medal

The string theory pioneer at ICTS joins past medal recipients Stephen Hawking and Peter Higgs, earning global recognition for his contributions to theoretical physics

https://t.co/EFjPazrUcd @ictstifr

[Deepak Modi @DeepakNModi]

@kvijayraghavan @cspramesh Congratulations Pramesh

[Deepak Modi @DeepakNModi]

@Chauhanlab_ILS @embojournal awesome ... congratulations

[Sanjeev Varshney @skvdst]

Special Call for Proposals for Establishment of @ICMRDELHI Centre for Advanced Research (CAR) for the Development of Priority Medical Devices and Diagnostic Technologies

from top 25 NIRF ranked institutions

Details at https://t.co/FfwSPhUDvM
Apply by 13th November 2026

[ScienceGuardians @SciGuardians]

🚨 DAVID M. SABATINI — FROM A POTENTIAL NOBEL LAUREATE TO NEARLY SIX YEARS OF PROFESSIONAL DESTRUCTION AND PERSONAL SUFFERING

$6 MILLION IN DAMAGES — BUT WHO CAN RESTORE NEARLY SIX LOST YEARS OF AN EXCEPTIONAL SCIENTIST'S LIFE?

@DMSabatini was once among the world's most celebrated biomedical scientists. His pioneering discovery of the mTOR signaling pathway transformed our understanding of cellular growth, metabolism, aging, and cancer.

By 2018, he was being discussed as a promising candidate for a future Nobel Prize. In 2020, he received the prestigious Sjöberg Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

Then, his world began to collapse.

Late 2020–2021: In October 2020, Kristin Knouse accused Sabatini of sexual harassment. Whitehead then ran an institute-wide climate survey. These steps led to an outside investigation.*

* Participation from Sabatini’s lab (~40 people) was low — roughly five responses. Some lab members later said investigators pressured them to give negative accounts.

August 20, 2021: The investigation found Sabatini violated Whitehead’s policies on sexual harassment and relationships. He resigned from the Whitehead Institute, was fired by HHMI, and was placed on leave by MIT.

April 1, 2022: He resigned from MIT after officials recommended revoking his tenure. Later that month NYU considered hiring him; organized campus protests followed and he withdrew in early May.

A scientist who had spent decades building an extraordinary research career was suddenly confronted with professional isolation, public condemnation, lost opportunities, and the dismantling of the institutional foundations supporting his research.

The damage extended far beyond his appointments. It consumed years of his life, disrupted his scientific contributions, and subjected him to an ordeal whose personal consequences cannot be measured in financial terms.

OCTOBER 16, 2026 — THE VERDICT

After nearly six years of controversy and five years of litigation, a Massachusetts civil jury found that his former colleague, Kristin Knouse, had DEFAMED HIM AND TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH HIS PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS, rejected her counterclaims, and awarded Sabatini $6 MILLION IN DAMAGES, with additional interest.

His first public reaction was devastating in its simplicity:

“Today I smiled for real for the first time in more than 5 years.”

⚠️ SIX MILLION DOLLARS?

What monetary award can compensate for nearly six years of suffering, professional exclusion, shattered opportunities, and the interruption of a potentially Nobel Prize–winning scientific career?

Money cannot return lost years. It cannot undo the anguish. It cannot recreate the discoveries that might have been made, the students who might have been trained, or the scientific advances that might have emerged.

🔱 SCIENCEGUARDIANS™ — THE ANATOMY OF A COORDINATED REPUTATION-DESTRUCTION CAMPAIGN

Between May 25 and 31, 2026, ScienceGuardians™ published its seven-part investigative series exposing the mechanisms through which academic leaders can be subjected to systematic reputation destruction (🔗 see the link to the full investigative thread in the first comment):

Target Selection → Recruitment of Insiders → Weaponization of Partial Truths → Media Amplification → Institutional Pressure → Reputation Collapse → Forced Resignation.

The chronology of Sabatini's ordeal reveals disturbing parallels with all seven stages of the coordinated reputation-destruction framework exposed by ScienceGuardians™.

For years, ScienceGuardians™ has been investigating the activities of the perpetrators we have identified within the PubPeer “PubSmear” Network Mob, alongside the damaging role that reckless or compromised journalists and editors can play in academic reputation-destruction campaigns.

We are examining the extent to which these external actors contributed to the public narratives and institutional pressures surrounding Sabatini's case. Their specific involvement and any coordination must be established through documentary evidence, and our investigation will continue to scrutinize these questions.

⚠️ Malicious reputation attacks and compromised journalism are among the gravest threats to academic integrity. When allegations are amplified without sufficient scrutiny, the resulting institutional consequences can become irreversible long before the underlying facts are fully tested.

The Sabatini verdict is a powerful reminder that accusations are not convictions, public condemnation is not due process, and reputational destruction is not scientific integrity.

We stand firmly for the right of every scientist to fair treatment, independent scrutiny of allegations, and meaningful accountability when defamation is established.

David M. Sabatini has won a significant legal victory. But no jury can give him nearly six years of his life back—or restore to humanity the invaluable scientific contributions he might have made during those lost years.

@SciGuardians 🔱

[Silvi Rouskin @silvirouskin]

@DMSabatini was always kind, professional, and supportive towards me and my lab. He asked great questions in my faculty meetings that I still remember and we still work on :) He retweeted our work when we needed it the most , and told me about the @PershingSqFdn and other funding sources. I just want to say thank you for that support.

[AcSIR @AcSIR_India]

Tusharika Kotra (Registration No. 10BB21A37016) Ph.D. student of AcSIR will defend thesis entitled “NLRP3 inflammasome is the dominant driver of neutrophilic inflammation and disease progression in endotoxin-mediated ARDS” on October 23, 2026 at CSIR-Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine, Jammu.

Ph.D work was completed under the supervision of Dr. Sheikh Tasduq Abdullah, and Co-Supervisor Dr. Sheikh Rayees Rafiq, AcSIR/CSIR-IIIM, Jammu @CSIR_IND @csiriiim