Did a top NIH official manipulate Alzheimer's and Parkinson’s studies for decades? Scores of papers by Eliezer Masliah, prominent neuroscientist and top NIH official, fall under suspicion (Sep 2024) Article 

Michael Harrop

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2023
Messages
851
Location
USA
https://www.science.org/content/article/research-misconduct-finding-neuroscientist-eliezer-masliah-papers-under-suspicion

In 2016, when the U.S. Congress unleashed a flood of new funding for Alzheimer’s disease research, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) tapped veteran brain researcher Eliezer Masliah as a key leader for the effort. He took the helm at the agency’s Division of Neuroscience, whose budget—$2.6 billion in the last fiscal year—dwarfs the rest of NIA combined.

After Science brought initial concerns about Masliah’s work to their attention, a neuroscientist and forensic analysts specializing in scientific work who had previously worked with Science produced a 300-page dossier revealing a steady stream of suspect images between 1997 and 2023 in 132 of his published research papers. (Science did not pay them for their work.) “In our opinion, this pattern of anomalous data raises a credible concern for research misconduct and calls into question a remarkably large body of scientific work,” they concluded.

Neither Masliah nor the various drug companies, universities, or federal agencies that were provided the dossier have so far rejected or challenged any of its examples of possible misconduct despite being given the material more than 2 weeks ago. And today, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) released a statement saying that following an investigation, it had “made findings of research misconduct” against Masliah for “falsification and/or fabrication involving re-use and relabel of figure panels” in two publications. According to the statement, Masliah no longer serves as NIA’s neuroscience division director, but NIH declined to further clarify his employment status.

YANG AND THE OTHER authors say the ongoing human trials of prasinezumab add to the urgency of their findings. According to Prothena, the drug blocks the spread of toxic alpha-synuclein and might slow the progression of Parkinson’s movement disorders and dementia. Prasinezumab’s documented side effects have not been dangerous. But if it is based on suspect scientific foundations and, as the first clinical results suggest, ineffective, further clinical testing could raise false hopes and divert patients from trials of other experimental drugs.

I think this is one of 3 different controversies surrounding Alzheimer's research.
 
Format correct?
  1. Yes
Back
Top