4 ms·

This guy might well have cheated but how could he be responsible for the huge mess which is the amyloid-β research (and amyloid-β lobby as told by Statnews [0])

This guy might well have cheated but how could he be responsible for the huge mess which is the amyloid-β research (and amyloid-β lobby as told by Statnews [0])? Sylvain Lesné, has no Wikipedia page. He seems to publish roughly a paper per year while some famous scientists publish one every month. He is not at the origin of the amyloid-β hypothesis which is more than 100 years old. Even more there are thousand papers published about Aβ*56 and Alzheimer's disease. How could this guy responsible for this mess? And if what he published was wrong, why this was discovered only 18 later if thousands scientists are working in the field? My understanding is that there is a need to find a scapegoat for the amyloid-β and pointing to an obscure guy is in the interest of many big fish. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/21/alzheimers-disease-amyloid-hypothesis-history/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/21/alzheimers-disease-amylo...

fabian2k 4y ago
As far as I understand this is not about the Aβ hypothesis itself, but the toxic oligomer hypothesis.
spfzero 4y ago
The OA points out it was, or was one of, the most cited papers in subsequent AB research. They make the argument that it has mislead many other researchers and cause a waste of many millions in funding. He's not an obscure guy in the field of AB research.
- dralley 4y ago
  That's precisely why it should have been caught earlier.
- xigency 4y ago
  So the observations it made were pivotal to expanding research, but none of the following studies discovered counter-evidence? It seems like something is missing here.
jibe 4y ago
Even more there are thousand papers published about Aβ56 and Alzheimer's disease. How could this guy responsible for this mess?* Because he started it? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533 But it is ultimately in indictment of everyone who went along unskeptically, collecting grant money.
- JPLeRouzic 4y ago
  > Because he started it? This paper is from 1988: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2893291/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2893291/
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    I think AB and AB*56 are related but different. The article is about AB*56.

fabian2k 4y ago

As far as I understand this is not about the Aβ hypothesis itself, but the toxic oligomer hypothesis.

spfzero 4y ago

The OA points out it was, or was one of, the most cited papers in subsequent AB research. They make the argument that it has mislead many other researchers and cause a waste of many millions in funding. He's not an obscure guy in the field of AB research.

dralley 4y ago
That's precisely why it should have been caught earlier.
xigency 4y ago
So the observations it made were pivotal to expanding research, but none of the following studies discovered counter-evidence? It seems like something is missing here.

jibe 4y ago

Even more there are thousand papers published about Aβ56 and Alzheimer's disease. How could this guy responsible for this mess?* Because he started it? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04533 But it is ultimately in indictment of everyone who went along unskeptically, collecting grant money.

JPLeRouzic 4y ago
> Because he started it? This paper is from 1988: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2893291/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2893291/
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I think AB and AB*56 are related but different. The article is about AB*56.