A Legacy of Lies Is Stalling the Quest to Cure Alzeheimer's
Bunmi fatoye-matory
Last September in Science magazine, I described evidence that for decades Dr. Masliah’s research had included improperly manipulated photos of brain tissue and other technical images — a clear sign of fraud. Many of his studies contained apparently falsified western blots — scientific images that show the presence of proteins in a blood or tissue sample. Some of the same images seem to have been used repeatedly, falsely represented as original, in different papers throughout the years. (When I reached out to Dr. Masliah for the story, he declined to respond.)
It’s true that some image abnormalities can be errors introduced by the publication process. Others might contain innocuous visual artifacts or human errors that sometimes appear to be image doctoring. But in some cases, the volume and nature of the evidence (and the failure of authors to provide raw, original data and images to clear up any confusion) have convinced outside experts that something more troubling has occurred. On the day my story was published, the National Institutes of Health announced that it had found that Dr. Masliah engaged in research misconduct and that he no longer held his leadership position at the National Institute on Aging.
Dr. Masliah epitomized a deeper malaise within the field — a crisis that goes far beyond him. Many Alzheimer’s researchers, including some once considered luminaries, have recently faced credible allegations of fraud or misconduct. These deceptions have warped the trajectory of Alzheimer’s research and drug development, prompting critical concerns about how bad actors, groupthink and perverse research incentives have undermined the pursuit of treatments and cures. It haunts me that this may have jeopardized the well-being of patients.
In my reporting, I asked a team of brain and scientific imaging experts to help me analyze suspicious studies by 46 leading Alzheimer’s researchers. Our project did not attempt a comprehensive look at all 46, let alone the multitude of other Alzheimer’s specialists who contributed to those projects. That would take an army of sleuths and years of work. But our effort was, to my knowledge, the first attempt to systematically assess the extent of image doctoring across a broad range of key scientists researching any disease.
Advertisement