Charles Piller

If you have image after image within a seminal scientific study that are shown to be based on false science, on changes in these images to reflect the experimental hypothesis. In other words, when the actual data did not prove the hypothesis, the images were changed.

in a way that would suggest to reviewers and suggest to scientists that this hypothesis was true. This is a form of apparent scientific misconduct that had an enormous effect on the field, an enormous effect on funding and scientific research and drug development. Now, it was not solely responsible for that, but it was important at the time. It was one of the most cited scientific studies in the field in decades.

And this is what Matthew Schrag detected. This is what he found and brought the evidence to me so that he felt strongly that it had to be exposed into the world more generally so the scientific community could take stock and try to correct the thinking in the field that might have improperly skewed thinking in the direction of ideas that were not well founded.

So now I'm going to get to exactly your question, the risks that he took. So you're talking about a junior professor at Vanderbilt University, did not have tenure, going up against some of the biggest journals

funders and authorities, all people and institutions he needed to continue and develop his career, to become successful as a scientist himself. And yet he ultimately decided that his journey of discovery was central to helping the public understand this set of contradictions.

Hän uskoi minuun, jälkeen monta kuukautta keskustelua tästä, että hän uskoi minuun, että hän kertoo ympäristön ympäristön kautta sekä koulutuspäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäiväpäpäiväpäpäiväpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpäpä

Well, yes and no. So what Schrag did is that he always followed the path of the appropriate way to question research, which is to go to the funding agencies and the journals, the agencies that funded the work and the journals that published it, and to present all of his information openly to them and make sure that they had the full set of concerns about a body of work

in order to judge whether it's worth looking at and whether his concerns might be well founded. And it was only after months and months of being stonewalled by those institutions, months and months of being ignored by

the journals that are responsible for the scientific record itself, that he felt that it was appropriate for him to come out publicly through my writing. And so the short answer is yes, he followed the sort of prescribed protocols and found them to be unfortunately not very useful. And this is

Voin lisätä hyvin tyypillistä tarinaa. Tällaiset instituutiot ovat parhaillaan tutustumassa ongelmiin, jotka tapahtuvat heidän näkökulmastaan, sekä sen mukaan kuin sen mukaan, että heidän ongelmansa on se, että he yrittävät vahvistaa ihmisiä, jotka kriittisivät heitä. Siinä on kauheampi tarina siitä, mutta kyseessä on se, että kyllä, hän käsitteli niitä instituutioita eikä saa työtä.

No, just to be clear, look, we're all human. We all make mistakes. I have made mistakes in my reporting, although I got to say it's pretty unusual because I'm a careful person and I have great editing and great fact checking. But that said, whenever there's a claim that I've made a mistake,

I drop everything and go directly to reinvestigate that issue to satisfy myself that either the questioner is incorrect or if there was a mistake made that we issue a correction. This happens immediately. Not so with scientific journals. Usually they spend weeks, months or even years without doing anything.

Yleensä he jättävät kysymyksen takaisin henkilökohtaisesta tutkijasta, joka on kysynyt. Otetaan esimerkki tärkeästä kokemusta Yliopistosta vuonna 2006. Jyrkikirja Nature kirjoittaa tämän. Tämä on suuri jyrkikirja, yksi maailman suurimpien koulutuksen tärkeimmistä jyrkikirjoituksista. Voit sanoa, että se on samaa mieltä koulutuksen jyrkikirjasta, jolla työskentelen.

Nature basically sat on this literally for more than almost two years before doing anything about it. And actually more than two years it turned out to be. Now, what they did is they kicked it back to the University of Minnesota. This is the institution with the most to lose and the least to gain from doing a robust, complete and publicly accessible examination of concerns about one of its scientists' research.

Lo and behold, they went years investigating this. Ultimately the study was retracted, but we didn't get the details of what the University of Minnesota's investigation was. We didn't get those details because they behaved in an incredibly secretive way. I might add that ultimately Sylvain Lesnay, who was implicated in being most involved with the apparent image doctoring in this study,

joutui yli yliopistoon, vaikka hän oli siellä nuori, täysi opettaja. Erityisen ongelmallinen, mutta tietenkin suuri ongelma, joka vaikuttaa hänelle joutumiseen. Kun ajattelee paperista ja rahoituksesta, jotka olivat kaikkiaan ammeloidipolitiikalla,

Let me put it this way. I want to make it clear that I agree that amyloid proteins and tau proteins have something to do with Alzheimer's disease. I think where I part ways with the progenitors and supporters of the amyloid hypothesis as the dominant way of looking at the disease is that I don't think they have everything to do with Alzheimer's disease. I think that the way in which that idea has been promoted has squeezed out other ways of thinking about Alzheimer's.

Siksi, että rahoitus on niin pysyvä, että kun niin paljon huomioita menee yhdessä suurin piirtein, se voi olla vaikeaa muiden tutkijoiden mukaan saada ratkaisua niiden mielipiteiden mukaan. Luulen, että se on tämän asian tragediaa. Voin kuitenkin lisätä sen lyhyesti. Olisi ollut suuri määrä huolta ja huoltoa Alzheimerin tilanteessa. Oli paljon sellaista, mikä liittyy MLA-hyposiisiin.

Tämä on yleensä siksi, että suurin piirtein ajatuksena ajatuksesta on suuri tavoite, ja se tekee mahdollisuuden, että väärä tai väärä tieto on paremmin otettava tutkimusyhteisölle.

with the dominant way of thinking about disease, even if it's wrong, even if it's based on fraud or misconduct, it's much more likely to pass muster and to be seen as being correct information. But I want to say briefly that