Researchers Plan to Retract Landmark Alzheimer’s Paper Containing Doctored Images

2
1309

From Science: “Authors of a landmark Alzheimer’s disease research paper published in Nature in 2006 have agreed to retract the study in response to allegations of image manipulation. University of Minnesota (UMN) Twin Cities neuroscientist Karen Ashe, the paper’s senior author, acknowledged in a post on the journal discussion site PubPeer that the paper contains doctored images. The study has been cited nearly 2500 times, and would be the most cited paper ever to be retracted, according to Retraction Watch data.

. . . After initially arguing the paper’s problems could be addressed with a correction, Ashe said in another post last week that all of the authors had agreed to a retraction—with the exception of its first author, UMN neuro-scientist Sylvain Lesné, a protégé of Ashe’s who was the focus of a 2022 investigation by Science. A Nature spokesperson would not comment on the journal’s plans.

‘It’s unfortunate that it has taken 
2 years to make the decision to retract,’ says Donna Wilcock, an Indiana University neuroscientist and editor of the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia. ‘The evidence of manipulation was overwhelming.'”

Article →

***

Back to Around the Web

2 COMMENTS

  1. Will the DOJ be used here to go after researchers as Dr Wang researcher for Simufilium? This will halt research. Western Blot cannot be the weapon of chose to blot out our researchers. NIH and industry have a responsibility here as does the entire science community not just individual bio police.

    Report comment

  2. I recently had a doctor who does trial for an alzheimer’s drug gaslight me about drug harm after spending 27 years on Paxil. She had zero understanding of akathesia and was not willing to learn. As someone who started Paxil as minor in 1995, I think we are repeating all the same mistakes with alzheimer’s. Start with an invalid theory based on bad research, get approval for a drug that doesn’t work, minimize or ignore the side effects and other harms of the drug, and then charge such a large sum that subsequent fines are simply a cost of doing business.

    Report comment

LEAVE A REPLY