An investigation by Science Magazine tells how Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, who is a Neuroscientist and Physician at Vanderbilt, revealed serious problems with research on a protein subtype of amyloid beta that has been a cornerstone of research and spending on Alzheimer's for well over a decade.
The paper in question was published in 2006 in a highly rated journal, Nature, and identified a subtype of amyloid called Aβ*56 as a cause of Alzheimer’s. That paper has been cited nearly 2,300 times, suggesting how many scientists spent time focusing their own work on this theory.
The debated research was published by Sylvain Lesné of the University of Minnesota (UMN), Twin Cities. At the time, Lesné was a new PhD hired by the lab run by Karen Ashe, a highly-regarded neuroscientist and Alzheimer’s researcher.
His pathbreaking paper purported to show Aβ*56 caused dementia in rats. Lesné won academic prizes and this year received a five-year NIH grant to continue his research. Most important, his paper was the foundation for hundreds of studies that may have followed his research to dead end after dead end.
Since then, the National Institute of Health may have provided as much as $280 million in drug research funding based on the theory. Pharmaceutical companies may have spent billions of dollars of their own money, much subsidized by federal tax benefits. Advocacy groups such as the Alzheimer’s Association aggressively promoted it, lobbied for more funding dollars to advance it, and pushed FDA to approve drugs that aim to reduce this material in the brain.
While dollars spent on flawed data is an issue, the more worrisome issue is all the time spent. As the amyloid beta hypothesis led Alzheimer’s research in recent years, it has halted off funding for those investigating other potential causes of the disease. Meaning that for almost 15 years, even as cases of Alzheimer’s increase, valuable research time has been lost and opportunities for finding effective treatments missed.
While Schrag did not accuse the researcher of misconduct, the evidence that data were manipulated appears strong. So on July 14, Nature added a note to Lesné’s original article: “The editors of Nature have been alerted to concerns regarding some of the figures in this paper. Nature is investigating these concerns, and a further editorial response will follow as soon as possible. In the meantime, readers are advised to use caution when using results reported therein.”
This event is enormous scientific failure that may have led to needless suffering by those living with Alzheimer’s Disease and their family members.
About the Author: Taylor Genter
Taylor is the Marketing Manager at Extract with experience in data analytics, graphic design, and both digital and social media marketing. She earned her Bachelor of Business Administration degree in Marketing at the University of Wisconsin- Whitewater. Taylor enjoys analyzing people’s behaviors and attitudes to find out what motivates them, and then curating better ways to communicate with them.