[HN Gopher] Potential fabrication in research threatens the amyl... ___________________________________________________________________ Potential fabrication in research threatens the amyloid theory of Alzheimer's Author : panabee Score : 214 points Date : 2022-07-21 18:54 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.science.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org) | tmaly wrote: | Yes, that is a lot of grant money to waste, but I think the | biggest loss here is 16 years of research in the wrong direction. | [deleted] | nabla9 wrote: | Intentionally diverting resources and skewing research from one | of the most biggest growing epidemics of our time seems seems | like huge crime against humanity that has not been criminalized | yet. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _seems like huge crime against humanity_ | | Gently note that diluting this term comes at a cost. There is | a reason international law reserves its designation for | states and heads of state. | legulere wrote: | Alzheimer isn't a growing epidemic. The incidence is going | down. | johndhi wrote: | f38zf5vdt wrote: | There are so many correlations of vascular injury with dementia | that it seems obvious that the fibrils would not be causative but | rather correlated to dementia. I personally believe that dementia | is related to or caused by repeated small vascular injuries that | eventually cause degradation of the brain. That is, transient | ischemic attacks that are completely subclinical aside from the | injury that is visible after autopsy. | ThePhysicist wrote: | Reminds me of that famous paper about Majorana fermions [1] that | got retacted because they edited a figure (I'd say with malice) | to support their sensationalist claim. In the unedited image the | claimed effect is all but gone. The publication of the paper led | to a flurry of research funding and a partnership with Microsoft | (who were keen on using Majorana fermions for topological quantum | computing). | | 1: https://physicsworld.com/a/retraction-of-nature-paper- | puts-m... | snapetom wrote: | Holy hell. Someone please correct me, but the beta-amyloid camp | has been under attack, establishment researchers still keep going | despite weak evidence, and now the best drug they have might have | fabricated data??? | resoluteteeth wrote: | Nope. It wasn't evidence for a drug that was fabricated, it was | a 2006 study published in Nature that convinced everyone to | believe the amyloid hypothesis. | JPLeRouzic wrote: | > * it was a 2006 study published in Nature that convinced | everyone to believe the amyloid hypothesis.* | | The amyloid hypothesis is one century old. | dekhn wrote: | No, it's not. It was introduced in the 90's. "The amyloid | hypothesis was first proposed in 1991 by John Hardy and | David Allsop." You're probably thinkinng of the person who | "discovered" Alzheimer's disease (Alois Alzheimer). | jamiek88 wrote: | Oh my god if true, and it looks to be true this is huge. | | The amyloid beta (Ab) hypothesis has always been fishy but this | paper is basically the bedrock of the current investigational | trajectory. | | The Ab hypothesis was almost dead in 2006 when this method was | invented and results posted and it sent shockwaves through the | research world. Since then spending on Ab research by NIH has | gone from $0 to $290 million all it seems based on a lie cited | over 2000 times in further papers. | | The article is pretty convincing as is the independent | verification that not only concurred but found _additional | evidence_. | | Sylvain Lesne has some 'splainin to do. | phkahler wrote: | >> it seems based on a lie cited over 2000 times in further | papers. | | Since papers tend to get published only if they have positive | results, what does it mean for thousands of publications all | citing a fraudulent paper? This seems really strange. If the | first 1000 failed to produce results and were partially based | on that original paper it should cast significant doubt on it, | but again failures are rarely published. | | What does this mean then? | api wrote: | Citation doesn't mean dependency. It just means the paper was | mentioned. What it does mean is that each and everyone of | those papers must be re-examined with extra scrutiny to see | if they hold up without the cited paper. | BoorishBears wrote: | That's why it was described as a "bedrock". | | A lot of papers that came after were producing results in the | framework it established. | | Because of the nature of a disease like Alzheimer's not many | studies can easily measure the final effectiveness of their | addition to the space on patients. | macinjosh wrote: | FTA: | | ""So much in our field is not reproducible, so it's a huge | advantage to understand when data streams might not be reliable," | Schrag says." | | I am just a lowly engineer, but this alarms me. Why is anything | that has not been reproduced considered valid science by anyone? | Why aren't our standards higher? | | If you can't reproduce an experimental result, it is useless | information is it not? At least an experiment that can be | reproduced yet fails to prove a hypothesis can teach you | something. An experiment that cannot be reproduced yields no | useful information. In fact, it can even mislead! | | I just don't understand the motivations at play. These are | obviously intelligent people who know that you can't fake | reality, so why do they publish fraudulent papers? Just for | short-term gain? Do they become blinded by belief in their | hypothesis? | niemandhier wrote: | Biological systems are so complex that reproducing results is | extremely hard even if the authors publish their method in | detail, simply because they might not know why it works for | them. | | This is hard to understand for software people, since code | tends to behave reproducible as a default. | | Basically the only way to reproduce a difficult finding is to | learn the procedure at the original lab. | | An example: A friend of mine could not reproduce his own | findings in another lab. Turned out the precise type of the | lamp build into the setup mattered. | | Another example: I could not reproduce a finding the was | something I wanted to build upon. Turned out the precise method | to dissolve one of the chemicals in the buffer as the problem. | It was even hinted in the paper, but who would describe in | detail what he means by " vigorously stirred" ? | ncmncm wrote: | This is why almost all results from running rats in mazes are | spurious. | | There was an early, very good paper identifying all the | details needed to make a valid maze experiment. Nobody cites | it, so nobody reads it or acts on its results. | summm wrote: | Do you happen to have a link to said paper? | ALittleLight wrote: | Biological systems being complicated and unintuitive is an | excellent explanation for slow or no progress. It's entirely | orthogonal to the question of why published results are not | reproducible, misleading, or wrong. If some problem is super | hard that explains why I can't answer it, it doesn't explain | why I continually publish fake answers. | | My understanding of the situation is that academics and | scientists work in a weird bureaucracy, there is an incentive | to publish, academics are very bad at detecting fraud and | worse at punishing it and statistical manipulation is easy | and endemic. These things explain why there's so much | academic research that can't be reproduced and why some | academic fields are basically the modern equivalent of | astrology. | ncmncm wrote: | They are blinded by assuming good faith and competence. | | Most scientists consider most of their colleagues more or less | incompetent, and even where they accept experimental results, | often reject the experimenter's interpretation of the result, | often correctly. Scientists advise us to ignore the abstract, | ignore the interpretation, ignore the conclusion, and trust | only the data, at most. But we mostly don't get to do that for | fields not our own. | | High prestige is detrimental in that it short-circuits this | skepticism. This happens not only in Alzheimer Syndrome work. | It put psychology research in the grip of behaviorism, | statistics in the grip of non-causality, political science in | the grip of dialectics. | axg11 wrote: | The most powerful results in science are continually reproduced | by being built upon to uncover further new knowledge. I'm no | expert in the toxic oligomer hypothesis or Ab hypothesis, but it | appears that these paths have led to very little new knowledge. | api wrote: | It reminds me of the eating cholesterol hypothesis for artery | blockage and heart disease. Most artery blockages are made of | cholesterol therefore eating cholesterol must be the culprit. | Simple, straightforward, and now apparently wrong. The | cholesterol buildup is a symptom of something else. | | Seems likely with Alzheimers that the amyloid buildup is a | symptom not a cause. | dmatech wrote: | And this is why I'm increasingly suspicious of "consensus" in the | scientific establishment. With careers, egos, reputations, and | grant money at stake, it's tempting to use one's power to | entrench this consensus. | | Scientific consensus has value, but science also requires that | people be open to having their pet theories be validated through | replication. | JPLeRouzic wrote: | This guy might well have cheated but how could he be responsible | for the huge mess which is the amyloid-b research (and amyloid-b | lobby as told by Statnews [0])? | | Sylvain Lesne, has no Wikipedia page. He seems to publish roughly | a paper per year while some famous scientists publish one every | month. He is not at the origin of the amyloid-b hypothesis which | is more than 100 years old. | | Even more there are thousand papers published about Ab*56 and | Alzheimer's disease. How could this guy responsible for this | mess? | | And if what he published was wrong, why this was discovered only | 18 later if thousands scientists are working in the field? | | My understanding is that there is a need to find a scapegoat for | the amyloid-b and pointing to an obscure guy is in the interest | of many big fish. | | [0] https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/21/alzheimers-disease- | amylo... | spfzero wrote: | The OA points out it was, or was one of, the most cited papers | in subsequent AB research. They make the argument that it has | mislead many other researchers and cause a waste of many | millions in funding. He's not an obscure guy in the field of AB | research. | dralley wrote: | That's precisely why it should have been caught earlier. | jibe wrote: | _Even more there are thousand papers published about Ab_ 56 and | Alzheimer's disease. How could this guy responsible for this | mess?* | | Because he started it? | | https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533 | | But it is ultimately in indictment of everyone who went along | unskeptically, collecting grant money. | JPLeRouzic wrote: | > _Because he started it?_ | | This paper is from 1988: | | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2893291/ | AlexandrB wrote: | I think AB and AB*56 are related but different. The article | is about AB*56. | fabian2k wrote: | As far as I understand this is not about the Ab hypothesis | itself, but the toxic oligomer hypothesis. | dang wrote: | Related: | | _How an Alzheimer's 'cabal' thwarted progress toward a cure_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 - Dec 2019 (382 | comments) | | _The amyloid hypothesis on trial_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17618027 - July 2018 (43 | comments) | | _Is the Alzheimer 's "Amyloid Hypothesis" Wrong? (2017)_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17444214 - July 2018 (109 | comments) | smm11 wrote: | Compare who has it, to who doesn't have it. | | My un-scientific version of this is that if you have a large bowl | of ice cream for desert every night for 55 years, you may develop | Alzheimer's Disease. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I remember the story about the addiction "study" ("Porter Jick") | that was used as the basis for declaring OxyContin "non- | addictive." It was dramatized (but fairly accurately) in | _Dopesick_. | | It was a letter to the editor, by a doctor, describing a small | study on hospitalized patients, and was seized upon by Purdue, as | the basis for their entire sales pitch. | | When there's money to be made, people can look the other way, | quite easily. | mekoka wrote: | Reminiscent of this equally upsetting article a couple of years | ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225 | onionisafruit wrote: | What makes me the most angry about this is the huge difference | between what the scientist personally gained from this fraud and | the cost of believing in these results for that past 16 years. | Maybe he is a bit richer because of this, but it comes at the | cost of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on research | that is destined to be fruitless. | | In the time since he published, I lost my father after investing | hope that a trial that is supposed to prevent amyloid plaques and | now my mother-in-law is slipping further into dementia. | nextos wrote: | As an insider, I am tempted to say research in most diseases is | driven by lots of fraudulent and oversold results. | | Maybe not direct image manipulation as in this case with | Alzheimer's, but certainly there is always a lot of | monopolistic rich-gets-richer behavior. | | Nearly all professors at top universities I have met develop | intimate relationships with funders and journals, which they | use to steer the field in their preferred direction. As the | posted article says "You can cheat to get a paper. You can | cheat to get a degree. You can cheat to get a grant. You can't | cheat to cure a disease." | | I have been asked directly to misrepresent results on several | occasions. In the most recent one, a professor who has received | all prizes and accolades in his field threatened me and others | when we refused to misrepresent research results. I could | afford to do this, but my workmates who have families to | support were on the brink of giving up to the bully. | prox wrote: | We need a glassdoor-ish site for these kind of underhand | dealings and fraud. | | Also, make a paper/proof trail and get it to | court/media/government. | onionisafruit wrote: | Thank you for making a stand on this. My doctor has a "No | Free Lunch" sign in his office saying he won't talk to | pharmaceutical reps. Maybe the research side needs a similar | pledge to avoid being corrupted by funding. I don't know what | it would be though. | elliekelly wrote: | What (if any) recourse is there against those who have falsified | scientific data? It almost feels like fraud on the {scientific | research} market. Billions of dollars and, perhaps even worse, | countless human hours, have been wasted in reliance ob completely | fabricated information. For what? An ego boost? Citations? I | don't work in science so I truly don't understand the motive(s) | on the other side of the equation. | MattGaiser wrote: | Presumably the same incentives as everywhere else. Money. | dormento wrote: | And people who might've benefited from an actual, more reliable | treatment who might have been developed, had the scientist | refocused to other hypotheses. | | This is infuriating. | fabian2k wrote: | When I started reading the article I thought the title was a bit | click-baity for Science. But then I noticed that the theory it | refers to was not the amyloid hypothesis itself, but the toxic | oligomer hypothesis that emerged later. That theory is pretty | much the main potential explanation on why every single drug | targeting Ab failed that still keeps Ab fibrils relevant. It's a | very convenient theory because it keeps the main original | observations about the fibrils relevant while explaining why | therapies that target them don't work. | | One part that is really important that is mentioned in the middle | of the article is that these systems are very difficult to | handle, and it's almost impossible to make many of them nicely | reproducible. Fibril and oligomer formation depends a lot on the | environment and reacts to tiny differences. | | I find this kind of fraud deeply frustrating, there is so much | wasted effort in the wake of faked high-profile results. | chmod600 wrote: | "very difficult to handle, and it's almost impossible to make | many of them nicely reproducible" | | Those same qualities that make a study hard to reproduce should | also create skepticism that the first study was done properly. | fabian2k wrote: | It's more insidious than that. In a field where the core | subject is difficult to handle it is nothing unusual if a | different lab cannot recreate known experiments on their | first try. This doesn't mean anything is wrong with the | original research, it might just mean that the second lab | didn't control all the variables. | | The part that is difficult and annoying is that the variables | are not necessarily known, it takes a lot of time and | experiments to actually nail down those. And even then for | some sensitive stuff every detail can matter, like the exact | type of tube you did the experiment in or the vendor, batch | and age of every chemical you used. Very often you can | control this enough to have consistent results for a set of | experiments, but that kind of stuff is really hard to control | across different labs. | buscoquadnary wrote: | It turns out applying those might not even be enough. | | https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group- | is-o... | panabee wrote: | as a non-scientist outsider, a few questions if you don't mind: | | 1. is it common for a non-reproduced experiment to gain | prominence as a leading hypothesis and spur related research? | | 2. if so, why? if not, why did this hypothesis take hold? | | 3. how can we make science more reproducible? | | reproducibility is held as a tenet of science, but this | example, assuming it is true, would violate the principle. | londons_explore wrote: | Trust, but don't verify, because verification is expensive | and unrewarding both financially and career-wise | ethbr0 wrote: | 1. Yes. Science has a snowball effect as a result of | committee-driven grant decisions. Research in a hot current | topic attracts more grant funding more reliably. | | 2. It does because some fields of science are intrinsically | long-duration, highly sensitive to variables, or only | testable at scales that exceed our experimental capability. | That's just a consequence of physics and natural laws of | reality. E.g. nutrition, chemical toxicity, economics, high | energy physics. | | 3. We can cheat and find proxies or more tenable micro- | systems to experiment on. But often those have their own | problems (e.g. rodent models) or aren't feasible. | | Reproducibility is a _goal_ of science. It 's not always an | achievable goal. | | When it's not, we do the best we can, as with drug testing | pipelines. | panabee wrote: | thanks for this response. | | given the prevalence of non-reproducibility, what other | fields do you believe have suspect leading hypotheses? | Quekid5 wrote: | Not the person you replied to, but... | | _Everything_ is extremely hype-driven -- it turns out | that "cannot confirm X" isn't very compelling for | journals, etc. etc. or even the news cycle. Journals, | etc. thrive on exciting new findings... and that tends to | lessen the critical looks. | | Of course, there are lots of other things to this | problem: Very narrow fields where people absolutely know | who their "anonymous" paper reviewers will be, and so | _must_ include even extremely tangential references to | those reviewers ' papers, etc. etc. | | Usually the sciences self-correct eventually[0], but | that's only because there is such a thing as objectively | verifiable facts and overwhelming statistics in science. | | [0] Unfortunately often as slowly as "one funeral at a | time" (Max Planck, I think). | ta8645 wrote: | There is so much of this, through many fields of science today. | Incentives that corrupt and undermine the scientific method. And | yet, many people will deny that there is justification in | skepticism of say, relatively new mRNA vaccines. | | Yes, it's good that science usually deals with such problems in | the long run, but how is the average person supposed to trust | that the latest scientific assurance, isn't 15 years away from | being retracted like in this example? | JulianMorrison wrote: | A big part of the problem is things moving so fast that a lot | of stuff doesn't _have_ a long run. Covid and its vaccines | being an example. In the end the reason to trust them was a mix | of "if not this, then what?" and "it doesn't seem to be | killing people". | fabian2k wrote: | We have a lot of really good evidence that the vaccines are | preventing a lot of deaths. | ncmncm wrote: | It has been unfortunately necessary to downplay cases of | debilitation and, even, death apparently traceable to | vaccination. If vaccination saves the lives of a hundred | times as many people as it harms, in the "trolley" sense, | that should be good enough, but in popular imagination it | is not. | | Rational treatment might enable identifying individuals | particularly at risk and not vaccinating those, but that | option is closed to us. Instead, a random, suspicious | fraction of the population pays particular attention to | negative outcomes and avoids vaccination, to its detriment, | and most of those at risk for problems get vaccinated | anyway. | ta8645 wrote: | > It has been unfortunately necessary to downplay cases | of debilitation | | I don't think it was necessary at all, and instead is | very counterproductive. Many people know they're not | being dealt with honestly by the government and media, | resulting in more distrust and resistance to vaccination, | than there otherwise would be. | ncmncm wrote: | The number of deaths would objectively be larger if | people had access to accurate numbers, because even more | would avoid vaccination and then die of the infection | vaccinated against. | | It is a tragic calculus. "Trolley Problems" are very far | from theoretical in public health management. We are | forced by distrust to sub-optimal choices that themselves | promote distrust. Managing risk of a better population | would be easier, but few get to choose that. | theduder99 wrote: | good point. at least we didn't have to wait 15 years to confirm | that covid vaccines were a scam. when cdc had to change their | definition of vaccine that was the nail in the coffin IMO. | ncmncm wrote: | We cannot be confident that "science usually" overcomes faulty | models. The best we can say is that science has often been seen | to succeed at this, in well publicized cases. Many less visible | fields might never overcome their biases. Usually a field | cannot correct course until a whole generation trained on a | false premise dies or retires. | | Economics is a field that has been particularly resistant to | correction, but is far from alone. Geology and statistics are | recovering from a similar handicap. | | As Max Planck is often quoted, "Science advances one funeral at | a time." Often vindication is finally delivered only after all | the opponents are dead, and the ultimate victor has retired | from a career blighted by them. Probably much more often people | are driven out of the field and never vindicated. | | Lynn Conway was driven out of computer architecture (where she | invented out-of-order execution, thus long delaying that | advance) before finding success many years later in VLSI chip | design methods. | lightup wrote: | At the U of MN? Say it ain't so. My proud alma mater. Hacking | linux kernel. Round up. Someone should start a list of what tax | dollars pay for. | jajag wrote: | > Ashe declined via email to be interviewed or to answer written | questions posed by Science ... But she wrote, "I still have faith | in Ab*56," | | Richard Dawkins won't be impressed. | chmod600 wrote: | Proposal: if a paper isn't reproduced in ten years after | publication, then it gets automatically retracted (which can be | reversed as soon as it is reproduced). Any papers that cite the | retracted study (in a way that the conclusions depend on it) | would also get retracted. That would be powerful incentive for | all the researchers who cite the study to try and reproduce it so | their papers don't get retracted. | | You could still search these retracted studies when doing | research, of course. You just can't cite them. | anakaine wrote: | The same issues exist. The next dodgy scientist on the hamster | wheel looking to get a name for themselves will claim | reproducibility and then publish a follow up in the spirit of | publish or perish. You could further entrench the issue with | this approach, unfortunately. | lamontcg wrote: | Better solution might be for the government to just fund | reproducibility studies, and even departments of | reproducibility. Take the profit motive out of it, find good | scientists who are painstaking but maybe not innovative and | fund them to reproduce major results. The scientists would | never get the credit for major breakthroughs, but could | occasionally be wrecking balls that called research like this | into question. With consistent and reliable funding from the | government their reward could be stability of employment | rather than innovative fame (of course these days some | partisan politics would probably gut it, which is why we | can't have nice things). | dmatech wrote: | We just need to cement the notion that no theory is truly | proven or beyond attempts to disprove it through replication. | Attempts to discourage replication should be a red flag. | abeppu wrote: | Is there a level of collaboration among so many people that at | least data can be re-used without being "reproduced"? I.e. the | field as a whole has put enough work into an apparatus or | infrastructure that we can regard the initial observation to | have been trustworthy? We shouldn't have to build a second LHC | before we believe any claims from the first one, right? | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | Actually the LHC does have two detectors with completely | independent research teams, often doing the same experiment. | MattGaiser wrote: | What percentage of research is ever replicated? Are there a lot | of scientists doing replication studies? | swatcoder wrote: | All that does it create an industry for replication labs, and | then a market where these labs compete to develop the most | "guaranteed" replications for the least cost, and then a whole | lot of replications which check the box but actually rely on | strained interpretations, questionable modifications to | process, uncaught fraud, etc. | | That sounds worse than what we have since it just eviscerates | the significance of what replication means in the first place. | axg11 wrote: | This is a powerful idea. Most problems in science are | incentives problems. Sadly there's little or no incentive for | journals to adopt this policy. | cjmb wrote: | I agree. | | Correcting the many incentive problems in modern American | science would need a hypothetical body with significant | funding leverage over journals & scientists to exert | executive action. Sadly there is no such centralized funding | body, so the problem must be unsolvable. | cleandreams wrote: | Just to note the human cost, my father died of Alzheimers. It's | not impossible this fraud prevented lives from being restored and | even saved. | mkl95 wrote: | Is there any relevant (non-fabricated) research about the causes | of fabrication in research? Is it just money or is there | something else? | upsidesinclude wrote: | This is what makes statements like "trust the science" so | sickening. Science isn't religion and it isn't always honest | ncmncm wrote: | The science is only more reliable than non-science, not | reliable in any absolute sense. And scientists are as fond of | superstition as anybody. | | Masks were described as useless for countering COVID | transmission because of what turned out to be superstition | around "airborne transmission", itself finally traced to a | result that properly only applied to tuberculosis. | | Belief in ivermectin efficacy was a similarly widespread | superstition among mostly non-scientists. | | We have generally had much better results from science. Science | was finally obliged to abandon its "airborne transmission" | model by people who knew better publicizing correct | information. But most ivermectin fans still cling to it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-21 23:00 UTC)