A giant leap backward. Why scientific fraud affects us in more ways than the obvious

I was greatly agitated by the recent revelation of fraud in the scientific world of Alzheimer’s research. It felt like an affront, a betrayal, and a giant leap backward. For well over a decade, so much of public funding and pharmaceutical investment has focused on Alzheimer’s disease that a breakthrough seemed just around the corner. There was palpable excitement when I graduated from my Masters in Biotechnology in 2008. The human genome project was grandly announced to be completed through the joint efforts of the NIH and Craig Venter’s private venture. Gene editing was expected to correct many genetically-inherited diseases, beginning with single-gene mutations. Neurodegenerative diseases, cancer, and auto-immune diseases, with promising drug candidates in Pharma pipelines, were due to be treated in the near-future as manageable conditions.


In light of this expectant glow that bathed any new discovery and any new approval related to Alzheimer’s, the allegations of fabricated data in highly cited articles describing a leading theory of disease formation, are no doubt a massive setback.


Science.org’s investigation into claims of misconduct by the leading light of the dominant theory on the causative agent in Alzheimer’s, Sylvain Lesné, reveals how perverse incentives in science can actually hinder critical thinking. Because scientific journals reward novel work, there is insufficient motivation for researchers to disprove prior theories, or attempt reproducibility. After this mischief was unearthed, it was reported that scientists who tried to replicate the finding of Aβ*56, the purported culprit in the formation of brain plaques leading to Alzheimer’s, were unsuccessful.


In addition to wasted funding of over a billon dollars by the NIH, this reigning theory is believed to have led researchers off into an erroneous direction for 16 years. The FDA’s controversial decision in 2021 to approve Biogen’s aducanumab for the treatment of Alzheimer’s, directed against Aβ, despite weak clinical trial results on its efficacy, and against the guidance of its advisory committee, should have begun exposing the weakness of a system that undermines ongoing critical inquiry of past scientific discovery.


Matthew Schrag, the neuroscientist who played a key role in unearthing the fraud of manipulated images in Lesné’s articles, speaks of his lab experiments on the link between Aβ plaques and iron deposits, and a high cholesterol diet in rabbits. When Schrag moved to replicating the results in humans, he failed. Alzheimer’s was a complex disease and as he explains it, even careful experiments done in good faith can fail to replicate, leading to dead ends.


Personally, there was another reason why this uncovering was so disquieting. In the last three years, most of the civilized world in a mass abdication of the values that propelled scientific exploration and advance, congealed around the two blunt tools of lockdowns and vaccines. Obdurately refusing to learn from the success of an alternative approach, the crushing of dissent from those who refused to sing from the official song-sheet was immediate and complete.


The criticism of the expert-driven consensus around Covid was primarily that science is never settled, that it requires an attitude of healthy scepticism, open-mindedness to a multiplicity of therapeutic strategies, and a willingness to course-correct in the face of mounting evidence. What’s especially galling is that the heavy-handedness of governments and health bureaucrats was executed in the name of service to science. The loss of credibility and trust in public health institutes is a blow that would be hard to recover from. This broad distrust of the purveyors of science is a frightening development, not least because it puts paid to the conspiratorial bent of many who reject scientific endeavors brought to fruition through the academic-industry network.


During the pandemic, I noted with consternation, a growing tendency in some circles, to connect all pharmaceutical treatments, and all healthcare systems and procedures, to a global malfeasant plot. It really didn’t help that much of what would otherwise be dismissed as conspiratorial, actually came about, through governmental overreach, regulatory authoritarianism, and breach of territorial sovereignty by the dictates of unelected global elitists. I do not have hope that this situation will improve; I fully expect that in the war-pandemic-famine-crises the world will yet undergo, we would have relinquished more of our liberties and suspended more disbelief.


Addressing my fellow Christians, as an aside, nuance should be our forte, and waiting to examine all evidence, the norm. I love how the New King James puts it in the book of Proverbs, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him.”


As people who make the case for our faith by appealing to reason, pointing to the historical authenticity of Biblical manuscripts and events, and presenting God as the One who empowers minds to uncover the principles behind the fixed laws He established in nature, there ought to be a very high bar for what we believe about what’s happening in the world. Gleaning from the wisdom of the 8th century prophet Isaiah, “Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread.”


Scientific dogma, in general, is disconcerting. It’s easy to forget that as late as the mid-19th century, maternal deaths were common due to the absence of antiseptic procedures. When Ignaz Semmelweiss in 1847 proposed handwashing with a chlorinated lime solution, he was mocked by his colleagues, and roundly rejected for going against the scientific consensus of the time. He was eventually committed to an asylum where he died shortly after, due to being beaten. He was vindicated only three decades later, when handwashing measures became a widespread practice.

Semmelweis-reflex: reflex-like rejection of new knowledge when it contradicts norms, beliefs, paradigms

Makes me wonder which of the unfalsifiable theories we do not tolerate any questioning of, will be cracked open years from now. Even Darwinian macroevolution which is the sine qua non of biology, which has had several intellectual critiques by scientists across multiple disciplines, including mathematics, will perhaps, not be required allegiance for advancing in careers. Intelligent design (which opens the probability of God, but does not work within a theological framework), might gain ground as a credible explanation for the origin of life. There are several noteworthy scientific discourses on the exploration of intelligent design as a theory, without the scientists holding any religious viewpoint.


“Even if misconduct is rare, false ideas inserted into key nodes in our body of scientific knowledge can warp our understanding,” said Matthew Schrag, the Alzheimer’s neuroscientist supporting the petition to the NIH about the data fraud. I’m making an extrapolation to societal conduct and cohesion — the most urgent rediscovery, is of the need to engage with differing opinions, instead of viewing them as threats. More to come, on the detrimental effects of extreme polarization, due in large part to, a refusal to challenge one’s intellectual hubris, and inviting another into one’s mental and emotional vaults, with their suppositions, worldviews, and experiences, while demanding acceptance, nay, celebration of our own.