BLOTS ON A FIELD?

[Dashinka 24,717]

Kind of a potential big story where folks may have been looking under the wrong rock(s).  Peer reviewed as well, instills a lot of trust.

 

BLOTS ON A FIELD?

A neuroscience image sleuth finds signs of fabrication in scores of Alzheimer’s articles, threatening a reigning theory of the disease

• 21 JUL 2022
• BYCHARLES PILLER

 

 

Early this year, Schrag raised his doubts with NIH and journals including Nature; two, including Nature last week, have published expressions of concern about papers by Lesné. Schrag’s work, done independently of Vanderbilt and its medical center, implies millions of federal dollars may have been misspent on the research—and much more on related efforts. Some Alzheimer’s experts now suspect Lesné’s studies have misdirected Alzheimer’s research for 16 years.

 

“The immediate, obvious damage is wasted NIH funding and wasted thinking in the field because people are using these results as a starting point for their own experiments,” says Stanford University neuroscientist Thomas Südhof, a Nobel laureate and expert on Alzheimer’s and related conditions.

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease

[laylalex 7,298]

I read about this the other day -- incredibly frustrating and sad. I read Retraction Watch (https://retractionwatch.com/) and the regularity with which studies are withdrawn for fabrication is alarming. This is so high profile though, and is likely to set so much research back.

[TBoneTX 45,871]

Scientific misconduct is reprehensible.

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

Wait, aren't we preaching "trust the experts" here in this forum anymore?

[laylalex 7,298]

Scientists get things wrong. Sometimes because they're just mistaken, sometimes they're covering things up. That's why it's good to keep testing hypotheses. It's part of the scientific method. Not every mistake causes harm, nor every lie. Just like in other parts of life. It's just that big lies and big mistakes can have big consequences.

 

There were a series of errors of judgment here, not just the original lie. The job now is to find out why the usual brakes weren't applied here. Retractions happen all the time, some big, some small. Some countries seem to be worse than others. If you follow this topic like I do, you can see why this was a particular outlier.

 

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

There are many such outliers.  Have been for decades, because humans make many mistakes and wrong assumptions.

[LIBrty4all 3,754]

Almost a half hour after I posted that, a friend sent me this...

 

[Dashinka 24,717]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

Scientists get things wrong. Sometimes because they're just mistaken, sometimes they're covering things up. That's why it's good to keep testing hypotheses. It's part of the scientific method. Not every mistake causes harm, nor every lie. Just like in other parts of life. It's just that big lies and big mistakes can have big consequences.

 

There were a series of errors of judgment here, not just the original lie. The job now is to find out why the usual brakes weren't applied here. Retractions happen all the time, some big, some small. Some countries seem to be worse than others. If you follow this topic like I do, you can see why this was a particular outlier.

 

I agree, but you left something out, sometimes they are just looking at the money.  Scientists are not immune to faking things or fudging data for a payout, they are not all altruistic beings.  The other thing that you fail to mention is how this impacts the all so important label of "Peer Reviewed".  It is that process that is supposed to catch these types of things before they cause major harm, or direct other researchers in the wrong direction.  What happened here?  Why did it take 16 years before this potentially huge mistake was brought to light?  This does bring into question anytime anyone uses that "Peer Reviewed" label, particularly when it comes from a government bureaucrat or some other scientists looking to collect some sort of reward or get on the money train.

 

I am curious why MSM is not picking this up as a much bigger story.  This is similar to the study on the effectiveness of antidepressants might be a few outlets covering it in print, but not hearing it from the usual suspects in MSM.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Dashinka

[laylalex 7,298]

14 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I agree, but you left something out, sometimes they are just looking at the money.  Scientists are not immune to faking things or fudging data for a payout, they are not all altruistic beings.  The other thing that you fail to mention is how this impacts the all so important label of "Peer Reviewed".  It is that process that is supposed to catch these types of things before they cause major harm, or direct other researchers in the wrong direction.  What happened here?  Why did it take 16 years before this potentially huge mistake was brought to light?  This does bring into question anytime anyone uses that "Peer Reviewed" label, particularly when it comes from a government bureaucrat or some other scientists looking to collect some sort of reward or get on the money train.

 

I am curious why MSM is not picking this up as a much bigger story.  This is similar to the study on the effectiveness of antidepressants might be a few outlets covering it in print, but not hearing it from the usual suspects in MSM.

Sometimes they are looking at the money, completely agree with you. This was an oversight rather than me trying to ignore that! I also completely take your point about peer reviewing, which I was trying to touch on when I mentioned applying the brakes. What happened this time that didn't work? Who was involved? Can anything be extrapolated from the failure of peer review on this occasion? Because not every peer review is going to be faulty, just like not every one is going to be correct. (Hint: Retraction Watch is a great source for this.) Throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't going to help -- we need to learn from the errors here. 

 

Actually I picked this up in the mainstream media, so it could be which sources you've reviewed. Well, to be honest it was my husband who brought it up but I'm pretty sure he saw it in the Guardian on Monday or Tuesday and mentioned it to me. There's a very interesting piece in The Atlantic (subscription, but you get 3 or so free articles a month) which is quite recent and covers what may have gone so wrong: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/07/alzheimers-disease-data-fraud-sylvain-lesne/670995/ Very much worth a read -- it takes a highly critical eye and it touches on some of what you raise about issues with peer review. Quite good links in there too.

[Boiler 45,922]

I do not follow the medical side but from a military history perspective can think of no end of examples where this sort of thing has happened for a variety of reasons

 

Now I think of it you just have to look at Ukraine where it seems the Russians are finding that the systems they have are not exactly living up to the sales pitch