When Matthew Schrag (a neurologist at Vanderbilt University, USA) shocked the Alzheimer disease’s scientific community in 2022 with claims of significant misconduct on a leading paper in the field (2006), it opened the eyes to a problem that has long been rooted in the scientific community, and not just in neurosciences.
Why took it 16 years to detect serious data manipulation on such a groundbreaking paper? Who is to blame for spending millions of dollars to fund research on that specific amyloid-b protein? What failed in the peer-review process? Would Schrag blow the whistle if no funding for his research was given? These are just a few open questions that urge attention. On the one hand, a fraudulent paper revolutionised the field of neurosciences, sparked attention from pharmaceutical companies and directed high amounts of public funds to continue researching the promising protein. On the other hand, there is the time it took to detect the flaws, the problems in the current peer review and the role of whistleblowers.
No question identified scientific misconduct demands to be reported. However, do we have a system that protects whistleblowers? Should we keep calling whistleblowers the heroes, or should their actions be the norm and expanded to all those who observe severe flaws in research? What needs to be done so that anyone reports any observed scientific misconduct?
Find more insights on these questions in this interesting article from Aman Majmudar at The Scientist: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/opinion-science-needs-better-fraud-detection-and-more-whistleblowers-70684
You are welcome to share your views about this article here and engage in discussion with others.