What the Alzheimer’s disease controversy reveals about academia

For scientists Nature This is the highest benchmark of your career. The work is considered very important in creating that page and can change scientific understanding. In 2006, study The assessment of Alzheimer’s disease by lead author Sylvain Lesné met these criteria. It suggested a new cause of the disease, a molecule called Aβ * 56, which seems to have caused the symptoms of dementia in rats. Since then, the study has accumulated more than 2,300 citations in the scientific literature and has influenced years of follow-up. However, a survey of the original treatise and many other treatises by Lesne, Last week’s explanation Chemistry, Identified a number of warning signs indicating potential data fraud. (((Nature He added a note to the treatise, stating that work is under investigation and the results need to be treated with caution. )

Some of Lesne’s colleagues in the field have been wary of his work for quite some time. The Chemistry According to the article, Dennis Serkoe, an Alzheimer’s disease researcher at Harvard University, was looking for Aβ * 56 in human tissue, but reported that it was emptied in 2008. A news article about Resne’s revelation posted on a site called the Alz Forum last Friday. , Reported that many other scientists said:They tried, but couldn’t reproduce the findings, “And have never published those results. “”We were always skeptical of this job“Gerhard Multhaup, a professor at McGill University and a researcher in Alzheimer’s disease, declared in a comment to the post. “”I’ve been writing down Aβ * 56 as an artifact for a long time“Dominique Walsh, head of the Alzheimer’s disease research unit at Biogen, a global biotechnology company, said. “”We were skeptical of the data from the beginning“Christian Haas, a scientist at the German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases in Munich, added.

After contacting Lesne Atlantic Received an email statement from the University of Minnesota, he is employed as follows: The university follows the process and considers the questions posed by the claim. No further information is available at this time. “

Of course, not all irreproducible consequences symbolize cheating. It can be difficult to reproduce actual findings, and even with best practices, false positives can occur. However, Lesne’s work also raised suspicions of illegal activity. In 2013, an anonymous poster from PubPeer, a forum for discussing potential flaws in published papers, pointed out. Possible image manipulation In a study that came out a year ago.Forum emphasized at the end of last year Similar concerns In another Lesne treatise. However, none of these posts lead to a formal investigation, nor do they lead to the above tweets. The formal process of reviewing Lesne’s suspicious published work is still in its infancy, not to mention withdrawing it, and the research community may wait years for it to be completed. Is the Scientific Whisper Network Always So Inactive?

Read: A real scandal about ivermectin

Science is a trust-built company, and in general scientists do not attribute inadequacy to equally well-explained malice.Peer reviews are far from perfect, often Completely fail to do the jobAnd in the journal Established bias Toward announcing positive results.The mistake of the published work is LegionFrom false reasoning to inadequate statistics. However, expressing concern about suspicious consequences is dangerous. Careers in academia can be volatile, the research community can be small, and open criticism can attract hostility from colleagues who evaluate submitted papers and approve proposals. Scientists may even cite studies they do not believe or trust in order to appease publishers, funders, and potential peer reviewers. This may explain the numerous citations of Lesne’s work.

Researchers who have the courage to express concern usually have a reaction anemia.. Academic publications are a currency of scientific fame and have won praise from researchers and journals alike. Therefore, the interests of the author of the treatise are, to some extent, in line with the interests of its publisher, and both may hesitate to be involved in the criticism.Most suspicious work is left to Literary anger.. Confirmation may be delayed if a fix is ​​displayed. Even retracted treatises can appear in science from beyond the grave. Accumulation of citations Long after their flaws were exposed.

Science may be self-correcting, but it’s only long-term. On the other hand, winning a suspicious result increases the waste of research and can spend the entire career pursuing the phantom. A 2021 analysis It has been found that a very small percentage of the experiments described in the cancer treatise can be repeated. 2009 analysis In multiple investigations where scientists were asked about their own or others’ misconduct, a significant proportion of researchers (perhaps a quarter or one-third) had colleagues in at least one suspicious research practice. He states that he has observed that he is engaged. Outliers for no good reason.And Elizabeth Bick, one of the investigators who investigated Lesne’s work, audit She and her colleagues found that out of more than 20,000 papers from the Journal of Biomedical Research, 3.8% contained “problematic numbers” that featured improper image duplication or manipulation. did.

Read: Science Publishing is a joke

Poor practice and some self-delusion explain much of this. Scientists tend to be pathology, a form of motivated reasoning that tends to stack decks in favor of pet hypotheses when analyzing or interpreting results. However, a simple bangling of data can ultimately look like manufacturing. Indeed, the boundaries are pretty vague. In the 2009 survey 2 percent Many scientists admit that they have participated in a complete research scam.

The Lesne case shows how these issues are accepted as a solemn situation, even if doubts continue. The academia’s “public or extinct” mantra has the worst possible consequences.It’s the dominance of false discoveries, the proliferation of research waste, and Alienation Of the most hard-working scientists.A culture of transparency with honest mistakes Easy fix It prevents fraud and provides a lasting remedy, Perverse incentive Rethinking scientific success. Currently, nothing can be gained by questioning someone else’s work, but there are many risks. Skepticism rarely leads to accountability, and the Whisper Network does not stop the suspicious flow of research.