Sep 12, 2024 10:08 PM
https://undark.org/2024/09/11/the-rise-o...e-sleuths/
EXCERPTS: These are the sleuths, as the media often refer to them. They are a haphazard collection of international acquaintances, some scientists and some not, from the United States, Ukraine, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, who are dedicated to uncovering potential manipulation in the scientific literature.
Those present in Prague, and others who couldn’t make the trip, have different strengths and interests. Some are into exposing statistical skullduggery; others are into spotting manipulated images. Some are academics sticking to their field; others more general-interest vigilantes. But all of them are entrenched in an ongoing battle at the heart of science, in which the pressure to publish and the drive for fame and profit have thrown countless images and statistics into question, sometimes cracking pillars of research in the process. The issue is spread across many fields of science, though some have suffered more than others. “The biggest paper in Alzheimer’s disease is a fake,” Inconstans said en route from the bar as the sun set over Old Town. He was sharing an opinion that all the other sleuths had already heard.
The paper in question, published in Nature in 2006, lent credence to a theory that the proliferation of a type of amyloid protein causes Alzheimer’s disease. The amyloid cascade hypothesis, which had all but taken over Alzheimer’s research, has led to billions of dollars going into researching anti-amyloid therapies to slow the disease’s progression.
But a decade and a half later, some sleuths noticed problems with crucial images in that paper. Core data appeared to be fake. Scientists in the field debated about the importance of the paper after the concerns emerged. Some believed that a landmark finding supporting the hypothesis was now unreliable. Others insisted the paper had never been used as proof.
No one could deny, though, that thousands of other publications had cited the research. And, in the sleuths’ eyes, the paper’s popularity made investigating any tampering that much more important...
[...] the questions raised about the work revealed cracks that have been slowly eating away at scientific integrity for years. And the sleuths asking those questions would find themselves not just seeking a minor correction but fighting for a greater truth. ... David Bimler, a retired perceptual psychologist from New Zealand, wrote: “We are all idealists and united by a wish for the ideals of science to be more like what they used to be.”
Whether they can do anything about it, though, is another question... (MORE - details)
EXCERPTS: These are the sleuths, as the media often refer to them. They are a haphazard collection of international acquaintances, some scientists and some not, from the United States, Ukraine, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, who are dedicated to uncovering potential manipulation in the scientific literature.
Those present in Prague, and others who couldn’t make the trip, have different strengths and interests. Some are into exposing statistical skullduggery; others are into spotting manipulated images. Some are academics sticking to their field; others more general-interest vigilantes. But all of them are entrenched in an ongoing battle at the heart of science, in which the pressure to publish and the drive for fame and profit have thrown countless images and statistics into question, sometimes cracking pillars of research in the process. The issue is spread across many fields of science, though some have suffered more than others. “The biggest paper in Alzheimer’s disease is a fake,” Inconstans said en route from the bar as the sun set over Old Town. He was sharing an opinion that all the other sleuths had already heard.
The paper in question, published in Nature in 2006, lent credence to a theory that the proliferation of a type of amyloid protein causes Alzheimer’s disease. The amyloid cascade hypothesis, which had all but taken over Alzheimer’s research, has led to billions of dollars going into researching anti-amyloid therapies to slow the disease’s progression.
But a decade and a half later, some sleuths noticed problems with crucial images in that paper. Core data appeared to be fake. Scientists in the field debated about the importance of the paper after the concerns emerged. Some believed that a landmark finding supporting the hypothesis was now unreliable. Others insisted the paper had never been used as proof.
No one could deny, though, that thousands of other publications had cited the research. And, in the sleuths’ eyes, the paper’s popularity made investigating any tampering that much more important...
[...] the questions raised about the work revealed cracks that have been slowly eating away at scientific integrity for years. And the sleuths asking those questions would find themselves not just seeking a minor correction but fighting for a greater truth. ... David Bimler, a retired perceptual psychologist from New Zealand, wrote: “We are all idealists and united by a wish for the ideals of science to be more like what they used to be.”
Whether they can do anything about it, though, is another question... (MORE - details)