Alzheimer's Scientist Indicted For Allegedly Falsifying Data In $16 Million Scheme (arstechnica.com) 49
"A federal grand jury has indicted an embattled Alzheimer's researcher for allegedly falsifying data to fraudulently obtain $16 million in federal research funding from the National Institutes of Health for the development of a controversial Alzheimer's drug and diagnostic test," writes Beth Mole via Ars Technica. "Wang is charged with one count of major fraud against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, and one count of false statements. If convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for the major fraud charge, 20 years in prison for each count of wire fraud, and five years in prison for the count of false statements [...]." From the report: Hoau-Yan Wang, 67, a medical professor at the City University of New York, was a paid collaborator with the Austin, Texas-based pharmaceutical company Cassava Sciences. Wang's research and publications provided scientific underpinnings for Cassava's Alzheimer's treatment, Simufilam, which is now in Phase III trials. Simufilam is a small-molecule drug that Cassava claims can restore the structure and function of a scaffolding protein in the brain of people with Alzheimer's, leading to slowed cognitive decline. But outside researchers have long expressed doubts and concerns about the research.
In 2023, Science magazine obtained a 50-page report from an internal investigation at CUNY that looked into 31 misconduct allegations made against Wang in 2021. According to the report, the investigating committee "found evidence highly suggestive of deliberate scientific misconduct by Wang for 14 of the 31 allegations," the report states. The allegations largely centered around doctored and fabricated images from Western blotting, an analytical technique used to separate and detect proteins. However, the committee couldn't conclusively prove the images were falsified "due to the failure of Dr. Wang to provide underlying, original data or research records and the low quality of the published images that had to be examined in their place." In all, the investigation "revealed long-standing and egregious misconduct in data management and record keeping by Dr. Wang," and concluded that "the integrity of Dr. Wang's work remains highly questionable." The committee also concluded that Cassava's lead scientist on its Alzheimer's disease program, Lindsay Burns, who was a frequent co-author with Wang, also likely bears some responsibility for the misconduct.
In March 2022, five of Wang's articles published in the journal PLOS One were retracted over integrity concerns with images in the papers. Other papers by Wang have also been retracted or had statements of concern attached to them. Further, in September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration conducted an inspection of the analytical work and techniques used by Wang to analyze blood and cerebrospinal fluid from patients in a simufilam trial. The investigation found a slew of egregious problems, which were laid out in a "damning" report (PDF) obtained by Science. In the indictment last week (PDF), federal authorities were explicit about the allegations, claiming that Wang falsified the results of his scientific research to NIH "by, among other things, manipulating data and images of Western blots to artificially add bands [which represent proteins], subtract bands, and change their relative thickness and/or darkness, and then drawing conclusions" based on those false results.
In 2023, Science magazine obtained a 50-page report from an internal investigation at CUNY that looked into 31 misconduct allegations made against Wang in 2021. According to the report, the investigating committee "found evidence highly suggestive of deliberate scientific misconduct by Wang for 14 of the 31 allegations," the report states. The allegations largely centered around doctored and fabricated images from Western blotting, an analytical technique used to separate and detect proteins. However, the committee couldn't conclusively prove the images were falsified "due to the failure of Dr. Wang to provide underlying, original data or research records and the low quality of the published images that had to be examined in their place." In all, the investigation "revealed long-standing and egregious misconduct in data management and record keeping by Dr. Wang," and concluded that "the integrity of Dr. Wang's work remains highly questionable." The committee also concluded that Cassava's lead scientist on its Alzheimer's disease program, Lindsay Burns, who was a frequent co-author with Wang, also likely bears some responsibility for the misconduct.
In March 2022, five of Wang's articles published in the journal PLOS One were retracted over integrity concerns with images in the papers. Other papers by Wang have also been retracted or had statements of concern attached to them. Further, in September 2022, the Food and Drug Administration conducted an inspection of the analytical work and techniques used by Wang to analyze blood and cerebrospinal fluid from patients in a simufilam trial. The investigation found a slew of egregious problems, which were laid out in a "damning" report (PDF) obtained by Science. In the indictment last week (PDF), federal authorities were explicit about the allegations, claiming that Wang falsified the results of his scientific research to NIH "by, among other things, manipulating data and images of Western blots to artificially add bands [which represent proteins], subtract bands, and change their relative thickness and/or darkness, and then drawing conclusions" based on those false results.
Meanwhile . . . (Score:2)
Last year, a large study [sciencealert.com] was published which showed a link between your gut bacteria and Alzheimer's. A new study [sciencealert.com] seems to reinforce that link by showing high levels of fecal calprotein in people with the disease.
Heston and colleagues suspect microbiome changes trigger gut changes that lead to system-wide inflammation. This inflammation is mild but chronic, causing subtle, incremental damage that eventually interferes with the sensitivity of our body's barriers.
"Increased gut permeability could result in higher blood levels of inflammatory molecules and toxins derived from gut lumen, leading to systemic inflammation, which in turn may impair the blood-brain barrier and may promote neuroinflammation, and potentially neural injury and neurodegeneration," said University of Wisconsin bacteriologist Federico Rey.
Re: (Score:3)
Last year, a large study [sciencealert.com] was published which showed a link between your gut bacteria and Alzheimer's. A new study [sciencealert.com] seems to reinforce that link by showing high levels of fecal calprotein in people with the disease.
Not the first neurological disorder tied to the gut. Parkinson's, too [parkinson.org].
Re: Meanwhile . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfavorable changes in the microbiome likely is contributor to the unhealthy and pro-inflammatory effects of ultraprocessed foods.
Anyone can see the definition of "ultraprocessed" is worryingly vague. The Nova definition [wikipedia.org] of "ultraprocessed" essentiall distinguishes UPFs from a processed food in that UPFs contains "food substances of no or rare culinary use". In other words UPFs contain stuff you don't recognize, like carboxymethlcelulose. Probably a lot of that stuff will turn out to be completely harmles
Re: (Score:2)
For example, do you know that most kinds of baked goods contain ultra-processed flour? Regular stone ground (brown or white) & wholewheat flours are relatively healthy but the ultra-milled flours typically used are strong contributors to type II diabetes. O
Re: (Score:2)
I hear what you are saying, but at present the scientific skepticism about ultraprocessed food is more focused on additives and their effect on the microbiome.
People obsess about macronutrients, but the one macronutrient they don't pay enough attention to is the fiber that's removed by processing. Of course even with the relatively low public focus on fiber industry is already using fiber additives to appeal to that market segment. They're all "fiber" but they're all chosen by cheapness and compatibility
Re: (Score:2)
"ultraprocessed" - twinkies, hohos, white bread, most supermarket bread, any bread that doesn't go stale a day after baking it.
You know in France they invented eggy toast because bread that has oxidized is hard and dry, and difficult to eat (it becomes croutons). So they either make it into croutons, or eggy toast, which is hard bread soaked in milk and eggs and fried.
Bread in the US stays soft for WAY to long due to synthetic emulsifiers (mono- and di-glycerides), even the "healthy" stuff.
"Natural mold inh
Re: (Score:2)
Most studies show that fecal transplants (FMT) are beneficial in treating a lot of diseases, but difficult to make into products any drug company can sell. Many people have been taking probiotics and probiotic fiber for a long time, and the companies making these things are making a lot of money on freeze-dried colonies of bacteria that can be found in most fermented foods. These are not all that difficult to manufacture, but also probably not that effective (I do take them anyway). FMTs have better and lon
"Believe the science, it's based on rigorous study (Score:1, Troll)
...then we get this shit..."fake science" for money. I'm starting to get the feeling that it's shit like this that drives people to question science and scientists on more serious and global matters like climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
You know he doesn't get the $16 million right?
Re: (Score:2)
So there's little doubt the researcher personally financially benefited from the fraudulent behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you wouldn't commit fraud if you didn't benefit. But he benefitted in the way that you do impressing your boss at work. Not in the "there's no incentive for scientists to lie: $16M" way.
The US is also somewhat unique in that they generally don't pay researchers. You have to get grants to pay your institution to pay you. I suppose that encourages some fraud too.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's foolish to think that there are no corrupt scientists. What is foolish is to think that over nine in ten of the world's climate scientists are in on one scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. What is most foolish is to fail to use preview.
But what is more foolish than the first thing is the second thing
Re: (Score:2)
And lockdown and masks did save a lot of people from death. Over 1 million Americans died from that disease, and some are still dying. The masks kept people like you from spreading the disease further. The lockdowns kept people like you away from others.
Also, you forget that at the beginning, no one was sure how it was being spread, so we got counter surfaces being wiped down.
Imagine you are now head of CDC and a virus starts killing your fellow Americans. Do you say: (1) calm down everybody, there's a good
Re: (Score:2)
Please do not misunderstand, I support your argument 100$, and want to extend it a bit.
It appears that so many Americans are so scientifically illiterate that they think scientists are stupid/part of a conspiracy/or ignorant if those scientsts continue doing research and modify their prognosis over time.
In addition, MOST Americans in my
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Believe the science, it's based on rigorous s (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even you should be able to understand this: https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Falsifying a study and publishing it as legitimate (Score:3)
That ought to be a significant crime, well beyond having your reputation trashed and maybe a license pulled.
It ought to involve prison.
Re: (Score:2)
But, a single case of deliberate data falsification should be the absolute end of a scientists career. It’s far, far worse than plagiarism, which generally deserves a smack upside the head but is better dealt with in a “3 strikes and you’
Re: (Score:3)
Prison? I dunno. For some cases, yes. Faking data can sometimes kill people.
From what I understand, the chemical he fraudulently claimed works is now in phase III clinical trials, meaning:
1) some patients received unnecessary doses of a chemical that he knew would not improve their condition, and were left with their relatives to entertain false hopes, now potentially leading to psychological distress;
2) these patients were exposed to side effects of said chemical, potentially worsening their health;
3) these patients who voluntarily signed up to participate into a clinical trial in
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming things. He may have deeply believed in the chemical, and just altered the reports to show what he *knew* had to be true.
This does not excuse him, of course, but don't be too certain of his motives. (That he intended to take advantage of his "secret knowledge" doesn't mean he didn't really believe it.)
This is why access to the data should be MANDATORY.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't follow your rationale. He either had the data to sustain his claims, or he did not. From the point of view of the society that judges the actions of a clinical researcher, that's all that matters. Acting in good intentions (which you assume) rather than evil ones might change slightly some aspect of the prosecution, leading to a lowered sentence, but that's still jail in practical cases. I'm applying same rationale as one would of the local witch or shaman that claims to cure cancer. By just wasting
Re: (Score:2)
I'm making a hypothesis (no probability assigned) that he didn't have the data, but he believed anyway, so he forged the data to convince others.
People's beliefs often are not rationally justifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of data behind the charts/graphs in his papers are a huge red flag. If there was data, anyone else could generate graphs on their own and show the discrepancy. I agree, any paper claiming anything without providing unadulterated data should be dismissed. This is why when anyone expressed concerns he redacted the papers immediately. That's another huge red flag.
It's difficult to verify that the data hasn't also been manipulated, which is another problem. There needs to be multiple independent studie
Personal (Score:2)
Indeed! This guy may have set memory science back several years by sending other researchers onto the wrong track, wasting time and money.
This is personal for me because my father passed of Alzheimer's, and it's quite possible I inherited the propensity.
Lock the Bastard up and launch the key to Uranus. In 10 years when he asks, "where's the key?", you answer "on a planetary probe". When he asks, "Which one?", you answer, "I forgot, I have Alzheimer's, too bad there's not a cure."
Re: (Score:2)
Only a tiny minority of murderers get to 10 kills. This guy has killed tens of millions, and has ruined the quality of life of many many more (US stats: 125k deaths/y, 13% of people >65y old sick, US is ~4% of world population). It's not just the patients, as Alzheimer severely affects the whole family.
To rack up as many kills, you'd need to invent leaded gasoline, oppose nuclear power, or go the more traditional way of uncle Josif or uncle Adolf.
Scientific fraud causes massive costs in general, but fe
Re: Falsifying a study and publishing it as legiti (Score:2)
summary says he is being charged with crimes that could be 20 years in prison.
That's a good thing. That is fraud against the federal government. And probably against the common good. (Even though probably not a crime in the us.)
I do (non medical) research and grants are hard to get Fuck the cheats who doctor numbers!
Probably forgot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Probably the same people that confuse a human meat puppet and stage prop for someone capable of being President.
Re: (Score:2)
Something very wrong in the soul. (Score:3)
Imagine the filtering function running in your brain to get a science education and ignore all the ethics built into it. And yeah, dickheads, there's massive amounts of ethical thought built into it.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm starting to think some of these assholes are actually alien imposters who have usurped the identities of the people they claim to actually be. Nothing else really seems to make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It could be both, you know.
And people wonder why trust in science is falling (Score:2)
It could be a simple case of (Score:1)
He should get the Congressional medal of freedom (Score:1)
grants (Score:2)
How many grant proposals are free of lies?