4 ms·
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.
by tmaly 4y ago
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 4y ago[deleted]
- nabla9 4y agoIntentionally 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.
- johndhi 4y agohehe, ironically diverting resources and skewing research and overall making worse the biggest PANDEMIC of our time isn't a crime at all :)
- dang 4y ago"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- legulere 4y agoAlzheimer isn’t a growing epidemic. The incidence is going down.
- Dylan16807 4y agoEnough to compensate for population growth?
- nabla9 4y agoOn a global scale, Alzheimer’s is growing epidemic. The age adjusted mortality is declining in some countries, but when boomer generations age, the number of cases increases.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- upwardbound 4y agoAgree. The perpetrator should go to prison for some sort of criminal fraud or racketeering or whatever a prosecutor can apply. This is serious crime.
- Ekaros 4y agoAlso anyone who used the results without sufficient due diligence should be barred from working as researcher or receiving grant money. They are not quilt free either.
- schnitzelstoat 4y agoWhat is due diligence though? Are they supposed to do a forensic analysis of every paper they cite? It's sad if it's arrived to this point. Reproducing the original result can be prohibitively expensive and difficult in many fields (ideally, this wouldn't be a concern - but generally, research groups aren't rolling in cash and resources, plus you need to be fast not to get scooped for the next paper and lose future grant money)
- SturgeonsLaw 4y agoGiven the replication crisis, more questions should be asked. Everyone knows a disturbingly large number of papers are on shaky foundations, but nobody is good at picking which ones
- dash2 4y agoSteady on now. Scientists rely on each other, they're not supposed to be fraud investigators.
- evandijk70 4y agoWhat about a researcher that measures the kinetics of AB-aggregation in vivo, performs X-Ray crystallography to determine the structure of this (or another amyloid), or performs simulations to determine free binding energies of various antibodies with the oligomer and cites this paper as the reason it has clinical relevance? I know people in the field that do all this kind of research and do not know much about mice-experiments or even about the experimental techniques used to obtain these results. To me, they are victims of this fraud more than anything.
- permo-w 4y agobased on the comments from alzforum, the relevant academics do not see this as 16 years of research in the wrong direction. they seem to see it as an invalidation of one branch of the research, while the overarching theory is still intact the cynic in me suspects that they're saying that to maintain their - presumably funded - status quo, but not being even remotely knowledgeable in the subject, I have no idea whether that is well-founded