[s12e21] The Plagiarism Schism «PREMIUM»

Utilizing the evidence would effectively disqualify our competitors and secure our path to the Nobel Prize.

As scientists, we debated whether "winning" via a character assassination—regardless of the truth—compromised the integrity of our own scientific achievement. 4. Resolution and Action Taken

We chose not to leak the evidence to the Nobel Committee. [S12E21] The Plagiarism Schism

California Institute of Technology Ethics Committee From: Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler & Dr. Sheldon Cooper Date: April 28, 2026 Subject: Formal Evidence of Plagiarism by Drs. Campbell and Pemberton 1. Executive Summary

After careful consideration, it was determined that the merit of Super-Asymmetry must stand on its own scientific proof rather than the professional downfall of competitors. Resolution and Action Taken We chose not to

Dr. Leonard Hofstadter eventually confronted the rivals with the information. This led to a fracture between Campbell and Pemberton, effectively ending their joint campaign. 5. Conclusion

The decision-making process regarding the disclosure of this evidence involved two primary perspectives: Sheldon Cooper Date: April 28, 2026 Subject: Formal

While competing for the Nobel Prize for our theory of Super-Asymmetry, we were approached by , who provided evidence that Dr. Pemberton’s doctoral thesis contained significant portions of uncredited material.