4 Likes
Another famous neuro scientist was accused of similar manipulation: https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease
The field might be built on fraudulent foundations. How many years lost due to these two fraudsters? How many lives lost without a cure?
3 Likes
This continues to be disturbing. I trained in a time (an era really) when this kind of thing was more rare. I’m not sure the character then was any higher. A better explanation is that the stakes have grown to such proportions that high achievement can bring far more fame, privilege, and money than in the past.
Reviewers and the review systems share in the blame. Virtually no one audits datasets. For the most part, you can’t blame them. The work required is often prohibitive.
My suggestion for some time has been to require the universities and journals to pay into an audit fund to establish a clearinghouse to do what a few small groups are trying to do at present but are un- or underfunded. One small group analyzes datasets for departure from statistical expectations. Several faked articles have been detected this way.
Think of the millions of women who have suffered physically and socially, experienced divorces, and even experienced premature death because of the actions of one scientist who lied about the breast cancer cases for women on HRT. It is not even right to call him a scientist.
All the more reason to require the consensual validation of two or more completely independent research groups before acting on them for one’s personal health. Better still, look to the crowd sourcing of end-user experts. This group is pretty good at sniffing out problems.
3 Likes