The latest book by investigation journalist Charles Piller, Package: fraud, arrogance and tragedy in the quest to cure Alzheimer’s diseasewas released in February. He details the work of Matthew Schrag, neurologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, tenn., And other detectives who have discovered evidence of problems in hundreds of research documents on the neurological condition.
Most criticism and coverage have been positive, said looting. But some researchers from Alzheimer’s criticized the book in criticism published in Jama,, Lancet neurologyand the website Alzforumwhich welcomes news and comments on the search for Alzheimer’s.
Pillage and Schrag say that they respect that others have the right to their opinions, but have expressed their concern that some of these opinions contain inaccuracies that minimize their conclusions. And the journals and Alzforum refused to publish answers they have submitted or to make corrections they have requested.
In a case, a publisher at Lancet neurology Refused to correct what Schrag claims to be obvious errors in an examination – including an erroneous assertion but easily verified on the quotes – telling him that the author of the article did not agree with “their interpretation” and rejected the need to resolve his work.
Many criticisms allege that the book of looting survives the importance of the misconduct of research which has undermined the Amyloid hypothesis Alzheimer’s pathology and questioned the newly approved drugs targeting the amyloid.
“There was this notion that there is a cabal around the amyloid hypothesis,” said Schrag. “This type of censorship grants that credibility.”
We directed an extract Book in early February and our Ivan Oransky called that “Reading required for scientific aspirants, political decision -makers and all those who will one day be affected by a devastating disease – which is all to us.”
THE Jama goodbye was the first critical assessments to appear. Its authors claim that the book details four cases of research misconduct in the field, when detectives have found problems in hundreds of articles of dozens of researchers, said Schrag. Him and loot submitted an answerthat the newspaper refused to publish “because of the many bids we receive and our space limits in the letters section”, according to the emails we have seen.
Jen Zeis, director of communications and engagement of Jama Network, told us that the journal “cannot confirm or deny the state of content that we have not published.”
Another inaccuracy Schrag and loot identified in critical journals is the impact of a 2006 Nature paper in which Schrag found Apparently manipulated images. The authors retracted The article of last year, but there remains the most cited retractéed paper, by Our countWith 2,384 quotes.
In a post on AlzforumJohn Hardy of the University College London wrote the retracted newspaper “had no great influence in our field”. Hardy described himself as “a member named of this cabal” supporting the amyloid hypothesis in the book of looting. He and his colleagues “never cited this work in our review of the amyloid hypothesis, any more than other major criticisms,” he wrote. Another Alzheimer’s researcher, Bart de Stooper, cited him “only” in a critical reviewSaid Hardy.
But this citation file is not true, said Schrag. “It is not clear to me why so much effort would be preparing to have never mentioned this article, when it is so easy (to) deviation”, ” Schrag wrote in an answer Submitted to Alzforum. He included screenshots from Google Scholar pages showing several other articles in which Hardy and Stooper had cited 2006 Nature paper. Web of Science corroborates these results, showing Hardy cited the work four times, especially in A 2006 Neuron essay and a 2021 review in Molecular psychiatryAnd from Strooper cited the paper 10 times.
Hardy did not respond to our request for comments.
Many other Alzheimer’s researchers have been criticized with looting and his book following Hardy’s post on Alzforum, which appeared in A discussion thread For Jama article.
Pillar said that he used to criticize and generally does not get involved in the arguments because he thinks that his work can be alone, but this affair was different. “Many comments were false and they were errors of characterization of the book, and many of them understood ad hominem attacks against me personally,” he told us. If he and Schrag did not respond, he said, he felt like “he was essentially accessed their arguments”.
But as with Jama, When looting and schrag tried to Submit the answers Over the course, the publishers refused to publish them.
“Your argument has been promoted for months and continues to be widely available in your book and in various media reviews,” wrote Gabrielle Strobel, Executive editor of Alzforum, in an email to plunder. “We don’t see anything new in your comment and have closed the conversation.” Strobel did not respond to our request for comments.
Pillar noted that Hardy and other researchers who have commented on the wire is used in Alzforum Scientific advisory advice. “When they let their advisers criticize me and let no answer pass, it seems strange,” he said.
At one point, Alzforum promoted the thread as a “debate”, said Schrag, but its publishers would not leave it and loot would react. “Is that why the leaders of the field want the debate to look like?” Schrag said. “You only have a voice if you marry popular opinion?”
Hardy had initially written his article Alzforum as a book critic for NatureBut the newspaper refused to publish it, he wrote in his Alzforum article. A spokesperson for Nature Told us that when the publishers ordered the review: “We did not know that Professor Hardy was a target of criticism in the book.” They decided not to publish the journal after learning its role during the publishing process, because “the exam may have been perceived by our readers as having a potential bias which could compromise the evaluation”.
Lancet neurology Later, another version of Hardy’s criticism. Schrag wrote to the newspaper to ask for correctional services at four “false false” complaints, especially on the way in which Stooper had cited 2006 Nature paper.
“Our criticism of books are elements of opinion, in which the authors are invited to express their point of view freely,” replied the editor Elena Becker-Barroso. “I shared your concerns with Professor Hardy, who does not agree with your interpretation and does not see the need for correction.”
When we asked Becker-Barroso to comment on the decision not to correct the article, she asked us where in the text the inaccuracies identified by Schrag had appeared.
“Please note that the journal promotes scientific debate and we encourage authors to freely express their opinion in this kind of articles,” she wrote. “How should we correct the opinion of Dr. Hardy?”
Experience is “much more of the same” than his attempts to correct other problems in scientific literature, Schrag told us. “You have the distinct impression that there is very little concern about obtaining good facts, at least in this case.”
Like a retraction watch? You can do a Tax deductible contribution to support our workFollow us on x Or Blueskylike us on FacebookFollow us On LinkedinAdd us to your RSS playeror subscribe to our Daily digest. If you find a retraction that is Not in our databaseyou can Let us know here. For comments or comments, send us an email to (Protected by e-mail).
Treatment…
Success! You are on the list.
Oops! There was an error and we could not treat your subscription. Please recharge the page and try again.
