Images used to prove a protein is behind Alzheimer's may have been tampered

hollydolly

hollydolly

SF VIP
Location
London England
  • Forensic imaging experts say they appear doctored to 'better fit a hypothesis'
  • Seminal paper was used as starting point for billions of pounds of research
The data behind the most influential theory of what causes Alzheimer's disease may have been 'manipulated', a damning scientific probe has claimed.

Experts fear the allegedly falsified results have misled research over the last 16 years, potentially wasting billions of pounds of funding.

A six-month investigation by Science, considered one of the world's most respected research journals, uncovered 'shockingly blatant' tampering of results in the seminal 2006 University of Minnesota study.

The paper pointed to a particular protein — known as amyloid beta — as the driving force behind Alzheimer's. It was the first substance in brain tissue ever identified that seemed to be behind the condition's memory-robbing effects.

Published in rival journal Nature, the study became one of the most cited articles on Alzheimer's ever published.

Around £1.3billion ($1.6billion) of funding for studies mentioning amyloids was spent by the US Government over the last year alone. It made up half of the country's total Alzheimer's research funding.

But images from the study, which involved injecting mice with the protein, appear to be doctored to 'better fit a hypothesis', according to Dr Elisabeth Bik, a forensic image consultant who was asked to review the data.

Charities today slammed the 'extremely serious' allegations.

But they insisted the theory itself still stands because decades' worth of research has pinpointed other amyloid proteins as being to blame. Even if the original results were falsified, one top expert claimed 'we definitely would not need to throw the baby out with the bath water'.

Dr Matthew Schrag, a neuroscientist at Vanderbilty University in Tennessee, was the first to uncover problems with the Nature study.

He noticed anomalies in the original images, published by Dr Sylvain Lesné and his team, during another probe into an experimental Alzheimer's drug.

They had 'the potential to mislead an entire field of research', Dr Schrag told the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Science, the publication of the AAAS — American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted its own investigation to the research, finding 'strong support for Dr Schrag's suspicions'.

Ms Bik told the journal: 'The obtained experimental results might not have been the desired results.

'That data might have been changed to... better fit a hypothesis.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11038595/Seminal-Alzheimers-study-manipulated.html
 

I have run into people faking "scientific" data in my career. Won't go into many specifics, but it did have a significant financial impact on me.

When that happened I did some research and it seems this is usually the result of a combination of ambition and laziness. Most often people believe their theory, and that if they took the time and effort they would be proven right.

It is usually a single person, easier to deceive that way. And usually done by a well respected one, people less likely to question them and/or are intimidated. Many times we never hear about it, very hard to actually prove and there are seriously liability issues making such allegations without solid proof.

The case I was involved with the individual was pensioned off and his work pretty much destroyed. He was discovered and reported by a young assistant, who was quite brave. At first and for a while the young man was not believed. I did not believe it at first, but looking back I can see I should have... We all so wanted to believe, almost with religious blindness.

Good peer review helps, but can't eliminate these problems.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top