SCANDAL!: SCIENCE BUSTS ALLEGEDLY BOGUS NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCE

National Review

 

Scandal! Science Busts Allegedly Bogus Neurological Science

By Wesley J. Smith

October 1, 2024 7:47 PM

 

This is how the scientific method is supposed to work. For years, a neuroscientist and National Institutes of Health official named Eliezer Masliah led the field in researching dementia, Parkinson’s, and other neurological diseases. His work became primary bases for developing experimental treatments, offering hope for these scourges of human aging.

 

But now, Science reports that much of this research was mistakenly compiled — or worse: From “Picture Imperfect:”

 

block quote

Over the past 2 years questions have arisen about some of Masliah’s research. A Science investigation has now found that scores of his lab studies at UCSD and NIA are riddled with apparently falsified Western blots—images used to show the presence of proteins—and micrographs of brain tissue. Numerous images seem to have been inappropriately reused within and across papers, sometimes published years apart in different journals, describing divergent experimental conditions.

block quote end

 

If this is true, the studies may be partially or entirely false:

 

block quote

After Science brought initial concerns about Masliah’s work to their attention, a neuroscientist and forensic analysts specializing in scientific work who had previously worked with Science produced a 300-page dossier revealing a steady stream of suspect images between 1997 and 2023 in 132 of his published research papers. (Science did not pay them for their work.) “In our opinion, this pattern of anomalous data raises a credible concern for research misconduct and calls into question a remarkably large body of scientific work,” they concluded.

block quote end

 

The report of error — or falsification — appalled scientists in the field:

 

block quote

The enormity of apparent problems described in the Masliah dossier stunned 11 neuroscientists who agreed to review it for Science. “Breathtaking,” says neuroscientist Christian Haass of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. “People will, of course, be shocked, as I was. . . . I was falling from a chair, basically.”

 

He and the other researchers didn’t personally verify every example of possible misconduct, but they agreed that most of the suspect work cannot reasonably be explained as careless errors or publishing anomalies. “I’m floored,” says Samuel Gandy, a prominent neurologist at the Mount Sinai Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center who was visibly shaken during a video interview. “Hundreds of images. There had to have been ongoing manipulation for years.”

block quote end

 

This is a scandal and a half. A tremendous amount of money, scientific effort, and that most precious commodity of all — time — was invested to furthering research paths and pursuing treatments for neurological diseases based on these, now deemed suspicious, studies.

 

The appearance of scientific misconduct of the most egregious kind is another black eye for the scientific sector:

 

block quote

Greenamyre notes a concern about the episode also voiced by Haass and others who viewed the dossier: “I worry about it giving science a further black eye, just as the public’s confidence in science and scientists is sinking to new depths.” But, Greenamyre says, “In the interest of transparency and scientific integrity, this sad story has to come out.”

block quote end

 

Absolutely right. When science goes wrong, it must be exposed and corrected. Publicly. That is an essential step in the scientific method and a restorative to regaining the public’s trust in the sector.

 

Another task toward that desired end is for the leading journals to desist their ideological advocacy. This scandal does not deal with a culturally contentious subject, and so “science” seems to have won out.

 

But would the same effort have been expended to bring wrongdoing to light if the issue had cut against establishment-desired policies at the heart of our bitter cultural discord, such as gender ideology as it impacts the care of dysphoric children, or climate change? In other words, can we trust science journals to expose falsehoods or publish heterodox studies when doing so would undermine favored technocratic narratives?

 

I don’t think so, and I am far from alone. Until we can expect journals to pursue wrongdoing or contrary indicia in those issues with the same aggressiveness that Science did with this matter, distrust in the sector will remain.

 

With regard to this scandal, good on the editors of Science for pursuing the suspected wrongdoing so doggedly. If it is determined that the scientist(s) under suspicion engaged in intentional fraud, there should be significant legal consequences.