Neuroscientist Matthew Schraig of Vanderbilt University blew up the Alzheimer’s disease research world by launching a study that disproved one of the major studies of the disease. Last Thursday The magazine orbited the scandal by concluding that some of the visual evidence contained in the 2006 study was deliberately false.
A landmark study has been published Neuroscientist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota Sylvain Lesn in 2006. In other words, Lesn claimed to have isolated a protein that causes memory loss by forming plaque deposits in the brains of mice.
Scanning the human brain in a neurology clinic (Andrew Brooks/Cultura Creative)
This discovery is very exciting for families, support groups and researchers suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, as an effective treatment seems possible with an isolated possible cause of a terrible disease. Lesney’s work appears to confirm a theory developed years ago that caused “a lot of buzz at the time,” said Donna Wilcock, assistant dean of biomedicine at the University of Kentucky. NBC News.
Dr. Shrug, son neuroscientist and a board-certified vascular neurologist who studies cognitive impairment caused by Alzheimer’s disease made history in August 2021 when he joined an investigation into an Alzheimer’s drug called Simufilam.
The drug was claimed to improve patients’ cognitive function by restoring a protein isolated by Lesna, but lawyers hired by two neuroscientists who sold stock for Simufilam’s developer, Cassava Sciences, suspected the drug was advertising a “fraudulent” study. Shrugged was accepted by the investigation as an expert advisor for having previously expressed doubts about such drugs.
The decision was made with a shrug It was described as “altered or copied images in dozens of journal articles” when it entered Simufilam, but after reporting its findings to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), it went further and found what it called a “red flag” in 2006. year. It was Lesne’s research that started all these protein drugs.
He then started his own six-month research, found “strong support for Schrag’s suspicions,” and a panel of independent image analysis experts to confirm the authenticity of the hundreds of images reported in various Alzheimer’s studies, including more than 70 of Lesne’s groundbreaking Alzheimer’s studies. created. clearly tampered with. Inside.
Shrag, which was included in the revelations, was kept secret until that day. Its high-profile report, published last week, was wary of allegations of deliberate scientific fraud, but other analysts who spoke less constrained.
While Wilcox thought some of the scams were “shockingly gruesome”, molecular biologist Elizabeth Beek said the main images were put together from “fragments of images from different experiments”, effectively allowing researchers to create false data to back them up. .
Alzheimer’s experts and advocacy groups are outraged that the discredited research could result in the loss of nearly $287 million in federal grants, in addition to 16 years of valuable time.
“The immediate and obvious harm is the waste of thought and NIH funding in this field, because people use these results as a starting point for their own experiments,” explains Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist Thomas Sudhof of Stanford University.
Shrug, a home-schooled genius who began working with dementia patients as a teenager, made the intriguing observation that “misconceptions embedded in the main knots of our scientific knowledge” have led many well-meaning and meticulous scientists to false conclusions. . , or false. doubting results that seem to contradict erroneous data.
“In this mysterious, complex disease, even careful experiments with good intentions may not be replicated, leading to dead ends and unexpected failures.” agreed, noticed Lesn The publication has been cited in “approximately 2,300 scientific papers” since 2006.
Lesn’s revelations are even more painful because many studies of Alzheimer’s disease point to his alleged conclusion at a time when skeptical scientists are questioning protein theories.
skeptics complained The “amyloid mafia”, named after an alleged Alzheimer’s disease protein, has hindered other lines of research and monopolized funding, even though none of the drugs, apparently based on bogus research, were effective and some had an unpleasant effect. Effect.
Lesn seems to avoid comment in the media, but co-author of the 2006 study, University of Minnesota neuroscientist Dr. Karen Ash told NBC News she wanted to withdraw the landmark study entirely based on Schrag’s revelations. He said he was aware of the concerns about the article two weeks ago and promised to respond to the editors as soon as possible.
Ash added that he believes the amyloid-beta protein hypothesis may still be valid, and expressed his disappointment that the paper he helped write was confused by many later studies, including his own.
“I’ve been working for decades to understand why Alzheimer’s is finding better treatments for patients, it’s discouraging to know that a colleague may have misled me and the scientific community about image processing,” he said. .
Other researchers aforementioned They are deeply concerned about the damage done to the reputation of their field – even the scientific community as a whole – in the “silent” and growing public distrust of the allegations.
Herold Schmitt-Ulms, of the University of Toronto Tanz, said: “It is not new or surprising that a small number of people in academia are engaging in fraudulent activities, because the short-term benefit measured in research funding or career advancement can be significant.” Neurodegenerative Diseases Research Center signs a contract with Canada global news Wednesday.
He explained the situation on Friday:
Science is a business of trust, and scientists often don’t attribute evil to what can also be explained by incompetence. Peer review is far from perfect, often completely unsuccessful, and journals have a deep-rooted bias towards publishing positive results. Errors in the published study abound, from inaccurate results to inappropriate statistics. However, raising concerns about questionable results is fraught with dangers. Academic careers are uncertain, research communities can be small, and open criticism can anger colleagues who review submitted papers and accept applications. Scholars may cite work they do not believe or trust to give credence to publishers, sponsors, and potential reviewers.
He noted that “many of the questionable studies continue to sprout in the literature” and that “even retracted articles can join science from the underworld, accumulating citations after their floods have been exposed”.
Adding these horrific statistics to honest mistakes creates a real crisis of trust at a time when the public is often told to “trust science implicitly” and political agendas are presented as infallible scientific facts.
Source: Breitbart
