3 ms·

>In other words, there are thousands of papers supporting beta-amyloid and/or building off the data / theory. It is important to note that the fraud doesn't en

>In other words, there are thousands of papers supporting beta-amyloid and/or building off the data / theory. It is important to note that the fraud doesn't encompass all of beta-amyloid, but is specific to a subtype called Ab*56. The plaques are there in autopsy tissue. We can see them. What is causing them is still uncertain. >No, in reality, this should indicate there is systemic fraud in the industry. Disagree. This indicates that the field can successfully identify and remove bad/fraudulent lines of inquiry in a relatively short amount of time (a decade). >A complete overhaul is needed This is extreme. Fraud happens. Scientific process is designed to root out unverifiable theories, by design. The process is working as intended, why burn it down?

arbitrage 4y ago
The process is not working as intended. 16 years to detect and correct major fraud in the field? That's simply inexcusable, and a sign that things are definitely not working properly.
zzleeper 4y ago
It's specific to the most important subtype, which single handedly rescued the entire beta-amyloid theory from the waste bin it was headed to in the early 2000s. Even 5-10 years ago I heard stories of researchers criticizing the "beta-amyloid cabal" for blocking every other avenue for research, as they were the ones in control of the journals (the referees, editors) and grants.
mike_hearn 4y ago
"the field can successfully identify and remove bad/fraudulent lines of inquiry in a relatively short amount of time" It took 16 years and only happened due to a couple of neuroscientists spotting a short selling opportunity, which allowed them to fund an investigation. Phrased differently, the field itself did not find this fraud. Outsiders did, when motivated by non-academic systems. "The process is working as intended, why burn it down?" The mis-allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars on the basis of a Photoshop, with the only outcome being that everyone involves says "no comment", is not by any measure the process working as intended.

arbitrage 4y ago

The process is not working as intended. 16 years to detect and correct major fraud in the field? That's simply inexcusable, and a sign that things are definitely not working properly.

zzleeper 4y ago

It's specific to the most important subtype, which single handedly rescued the entire beta-amyloid theory from the waste bin it was headed to in the early 2000s. Even 5-10 years ago I heard stories of researchers criticizing the "beta-amyloid cabal" for blocking every other avenue for research, as they were the ones in control of the journals (the referees, editors) and grants.

mike_hearn 4y ago

"the field can successfully identify and remove bad/fraudulent lines of inquiry in a relatively short amount of time" It took 16 years and only happened due to a couple of neuroscientists spotting a short selling opportunity, which allowed them to fund an investigation. Phrased differently, the field itself did not find this fraud. Outsiders did, when motivated by non-academic systems. "The process is working as intended, why burn it down?" The mis-allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars on the basis of a Photoshop, with the only outcome being that everyone involves says "no comment", is not by any measure the process working as intended.