Six top Alzheimer's researchers accused of fraud
Several prominent Alzheimer's researchers face fraud allegations, including falsified data and images. These accusations raise concerns about research integrity, impacting funding and suggesting 14% of publications may involve fraud.
Read original article
A recent thread by Dan Elton highlights several prominent Alzheimer's researchers accused of credible fraud. The list includes Marc Tessier-Lavigne, who resigned from Stanford after issues in his 2009 paper were raised; Sylvain Lesné, whose influential 2006 paper was found to contain fraudulent images after 16 years; and Hoau-Yan Wang, indicted for fraud related to NIH grant applications. Other notable figures include Eliezer Masliah, whose work has been linked to fraudulent claims about a drug, and Berislav Zlokovic, accused of instructing lab members to falsify data. Domenico Praticò is also mentioned, facing allegations of fraudulent images in his research. The thread emphasizes the significant impact of these alleged frauds on Alzheimer's research and funding, with estimates suggesting that 14% of peer-reviewed publications may contain some form of fraud. The discussion raises concerns about the integrity of scientific research in the field.
- Several high-profile Alzheimer's researchers are accused of fraud.
- Allegations include falsified data and fraudulent images in influential studies.
- The accusations have significant implications for Alzheimer's research and funding.
- An estimated 14% of peer-reviewed publications may involve some form of fraud.
- The thread calls attention to the need for greater scrutiny in scientific research.
Related
The case for criminalizing scientific misconduct · Chris Said
The article argues for criminalizing scientific misconduct, citing cases like Sylvain Lesné's fake research. It proposes Danish-style committees and federal laws to address misconduct effectively, emphasizing accountability and public trust protection.
Professor Charged for Operating Multimillion-Dollar Grant Fraud Scheme
A Pennsylvania medical professor, Hoau-Yan Wang, faces indictment for allegedly defrauding the NIH of $16 million in grant funds by fabricating data for Alzheimer's research. Charges include major fraud and carry up to 20-year prison sentences.
Alzheimer's scientist indicted for allegedly falsifying data in $16M scheme
An Alzheimer's researcher indicted for falsifying data to secure $16 million in funding. Collaboration with Cassava Sciences on Simufilam treatment. Concerns about research integrity, retractions, FDA inspection, and potential prison time. Cassava acknowledges limited involvement, trials ongoing with 1,800+ patients.
The Academic Culture of Fraud
In 2006, Sylvain Lesné's Alzheimer’s research faced retraction due to manipulated images, highlighting academic fraud issues. Similar cases reveal a troubling trend of inadequate accountability in research institutions.
The staggering death toll of scientific lies
Scientific fraud, exemplified by Don Poldermans' falsified research, poses health risks and raises questions about accountability, with debates on criminalization and proposals for clearer legal frameworks and independent oversight.
9 commentsScience should be globally coordinated, well-funded, and focused on advancing humanity, not driven by institutional agendas.
I don't think we have a better, readily available solution to the problem than a public peer network (such as https://pubpeer.com/) monitoring the published papers, especially those "groundbreaking breakthroughs". Also, AI algorithms should be applied for the purpose. Every research funded from public funds should be freely available, together with datasets and auxiliary data (scripts, etc). Study preregistration should be obligatory.
Coordination of the scientific project is also very important, but that's out of my competence.
The usual proposed solution is more replication. Every HN thread on scientific fraud has people proposing this fix. Unfortunately, replication studies can't fix science and can in some situations make things worse. I wrote about why not here:
https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science...
What’s the context of this investigation?
Why are some of the figures so vague? Papers and authorship is trivially countable.
Why the focus on tax dollars? Seems designed to appeal to emotion (or politics?)
Related
The case for criminalizing scientific misconduct · Chris Said
The article argues for criminalizing scientific misconduct, citing cases like Sylvain Lesné's fake research. It proposes Danish-style committees and federal laws to address misconduct effectively, emphasizing accountability and public trust protection.
Professor Charged for Operating Multimillion-Dollar Grant Fraud Scheme
A Pennsylvania medical professor, Hoau-Yan Wang, faces indictment for allegedly defrauding the NIH of $16 million in grant funds by fabricating data for Alzheimer's research. Charges include major fraud and carry up to 20-year prison sentences.
Alzheimer's scientist indicted for allegedly falsifying data in $16M scheme
An Alzheimer's researcher indicted for falsifying data to secure $16 million in funding. Collaboration with Cassava Sciences on Simufilam treatment. Concerns about research integrity, retractions, FDA inspection, and potential prison time. Cassava acknowledges limited involvement, trials ongoing with 1,800+ patients.
The Academic Culture of Fraud
In 2006, Sylvain Lesné's Alzheimer’s research faced retraction due to manipulated images, highlighting academic fraud issues. Similar cases reveal a troubling trend of inadequate accountability in research institutions.
The staggering death toll of scientific lies
Scientific fraud, exemplified by Don Poldermans' falsified research, poses health risks and raises questions about accountability, with debates on criminalization and proposals for clearer legal frameworks and independent oversight.