Internal Review Found 'Falsified Data' in Stanford President's Alzheimer's Research, Colleagues Allege (stanforddaily.com) 34
Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne was formerly executive vice president for research and chief scientific officer at biotech giant Genentech, according to his page on Wikipedia. "In 2022, Stanford University opened an investigation into allegations of Tessier-Lavigne's involvement in fabricating results in articles published between 2001 and 2008."
But Friday Stanford's student newspaper published even more allegations: In 2009, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, then a top executive at the biotechnology company Genentech, was the primary author of a scientific paper published in the prestigious journal Nature that claimed to have found the potential cause for brain degeneration in Alzheimer's patients. "Because of this research," read Genentech's annual letter to shareholders, "we are working to develop both antibodies and small molecules that may attack Alzheimer's from a novel entry point and help the millions of people who currently suffer from this devastating disease."
But after several unsuccessful attempts to reproduce the research, the paper became the subject of an internal review by Genentech's Research Review Committee (RRC), according to four high-level Genentech employees at the time... The scientists, one of whom was an executive who sat on the review committee and all of whom were informed of the review's findings at the time due to their stature at the company, said that the inquiry discovered falsification of data in the research, and that Tessier-Lavigne kept the finding from becoming public.
Tessier-Lavigne denies both allegations. Genentech said in a statement that "as part of our diligence related to these allegations, we reviewed the records from that November 2011 RRC meeting and saw no allegations of fraud or wrongdoing." The company acknowledged that "given that these events happened many years ago ... our current records may not be complete."
After the review, which began in 2011, Genentech canceled research based on the paper's findings. Till Maurer, a senior scientist at the company from 2009-2018 who said he was assigned to develop drugs based on the 2009 paper, told The Daily that his superior informed him that, in Maurer's words, "the project is being canceled and it's because they found falsified data...."
According to the executive who was part of the committee that reviewed the paper, the inquiry was thorough and left little room for doubt. Laboratory technicians and assistants were interviewed while scientists independent of the lab attempted to verify the findings of the study. "None of [the research review committee members] believed that these data were true by the time people had attempted to reproduce it," the executive said. He said that the understanding of the research committee was that the paper's supposed finding of N-APP's role in Alzheimer's had been "faked," and used "made up" figures as evidence.
But Friday Stanford's student newspaper published even more allegations: In 2009, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, then a top executive at the biotechnology company Genentech, was the primary author of a scientific paper published in the prestigious journal Nature that claimed to have found the potential cause for brain degeneration in Alzheimer's patients. "Because of this research," read Genentech's annual letter to shareholders, "we are working to develop both antibodies and small molecules that may attack Alzheimer's from a novel entry point and help the millions of people who currently suffer from this devastating disease."
But after several unsuccessful attempts to reproduce the research, the paper became the subject of an internal review by Genentech's Research Review Committee (RRC), according to four high-level Genentech employees at the time... The scientists, one of whom was an executive who sat on the review committee and all of whom were informed of the review's findings at the time due to their stature at the company, said that the inquiry discovered falsification of data in the research, and that Tessier-Lavigne kept the finding from becoming public.
Tessier-Lavigne denies both allegations. Genentech said in a statement that "as part of our diligence related to these allegations, we reviewed the records from that November 2011 RRC meeting and saw no allegations of fraud or wrongdoing." The company acknowledged that "given that these events happened many years ago ... our current records may not be complete."
After the review, which began in 2011, Genentech canceled research based on the paper's findings. Till Maurer, a senior scientist at the company from 2009-2018 who said he was assigned to develop drugs based on the 2009 paper, told The Daily that his superior informed him that, in Maurer's words, "the project is being canceled and it's because they found falsified data...."
According to the executive who was part of the committee that reviewed the paper, the inquiry was thorough and left little room for doubt. Laboratory technicians and assistants were interviewed while scientists independent of the lab attempted to verify the findings of the study. "None of [the research review committee members] believed that these data were true by the time people had attempted to reproduce it," the executive said. He said that the understanding of the research committee was that the paper's supposed finding of N-APP's role in Alzheimer's had been "faked," and used "made up" figures as evidence.
He Should Be His Own Test Subject (Score:2)
Maybe it will give him Alzheimer's.
Re: He Should Be His Own Test Subject (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I perceive what you did there.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I did NOT find this story Funny, though that is apparently what this FP branch is going for, but I sure as heck do not Like this story. There should be some kind of generalized negative response, but today's Internet can't support that level of honesty against the game-rigging trolls.
But my overwhelming emotional response is simple: Sad.
Why things are so broken and why there is so much sadness to go around these days are separate questions.
Failure is an option (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Failure is an option (Score:5, Insightful)
That's where pre-registration comes in, i.e. the scientists submit their proposal for a study when it starts, before any data comes in. That way, if it turns out to be null, at least there's a record of the study, it's methods, subjects, etc., for others to learn from.
Re: (Score:2)
The flip side of this is that it is easy to conduct experiments that were destined to fail from the get-go from previous research and knowledge. This will cue the shady scientific characters to find the seams for failure and then construct "science" that shows they failed but fail to report they never had the possibility to succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't part of the idea of editors and peer reviewers that those people are independent and have a fairly good idea of what qualifies as novel, interesting, and plausible research in the field?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The flip side of this is that it is easy to conduct experiments that were destined to fail from the get-go from previous research and knowledge. This will cue the shady scientific characters to find the seams for failure and then construct "science" that shows they failed but fail to report they never had the possibility to succeed.
It's a balance. The incentive should be strong enough to write up and publish a null (or not particularly novel) result, but not strong enough to knowingly start down a dead end in the first place.
It should be noted, this is all kinda off-topic since the researcher in question was acting not as an academic, but as a top executive of a biotech company. The incentive for fabricating data wasn't getting publications or even grants, it was investment, continuation of the project, and eventual drug patents*.
* As
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. Publishing bias is definitely a problem. Keeping null results from being published means the same things can get researched over & over again & still not reported. It's very inefficient & also prevents scientists from trying variations on studies that may yield positive results. In short, we need to publish every good quality study whether it's positive or null.
That's where pre-registration comes in, i.e. the scientists submit their proposal for a study when it starts, before any data comes in. That way, if it turns out to be null, at least there's a record of the study, it's methods, subjects, etc., for others to learn from.
Ima go full cynic here.
Medicine industry don't care 'bout anything workin'
Medicine industry care 'bout maintenance meds that have a predictable income stream.
Much piasters to be gained!
In a life ending process such as Alzheimers, with some "good" days and bad days, how does one determine if the medicine is actually working? If Gramma has a couple good days in a row - yay, Amplifrickintweeda is working!
Or maybe it isn't, as Gramma continues her decline.
Freaking Alzheimer's drugs function best a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Failure is an option (Score:2)
I've talked for years about starting a journal called Null that only publishes null results. It would easily become the most important journal in biosciences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, it is annoying that a study that reproduce a previous study is not deemed worthy of publication. Or that study that show an idea didn't work isn't worthy of pubications either.
There are journals now where you publish your paper based on experimental setting and hypothesis and the paper gets accepted BEFORE the results are in. As a way to incentivize good research. I hope they succeed!
Stanford is under the microscope now (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"We lie, we cheat, we steal."
These people are all funded by a common cabal. It takes a type who's willing to be unscrupulous to be cornered and blackmailed by their past behavior.
The carrot-and-stick strategy is "we can ruin you, but we can also make you wealthy and successful. There's just one small catch."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
After the scandal with SBF and that two Stanford workers outside his family covered his bail,
Except they haven't. SBF has got a sweetheart deal in which the $250M is pure fiction. There are no assets behind the bond to cover more than than a tiny fraction of that amount. The two Stanford workers and his family don't have anything like $250M.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh-oh (Score:2)
Confabulation [wikipedia.org] is a telltale sign of Alzheimer onset.
Translation (Score:2)
"given that these events happened many years ago ... our current records may not be complete."
In English: The boss shredded any evidence against him years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
"given that these events happened many years ago ... our current records may not be complete."
In English: The boss shredded any evidence against him years ago.
Well you know - in 2011 we were still using cuneiform tablets and scratch sticks.
Re: Translation (Score:2)
Ironically, cuneiform tablets from Sumeria will probably outlast anything published in the last ten years.
The technology has already proven resilient for 4,500 years and there's no reason to think it can't work for longer timelines under the right conditions.
The introduction of papyrus starts a period of lost history in studies of Mesopotamia.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, cuneiform tablets from Sumeria will probably outlast anything published in the last ten years.
The technology has already proven resilient for 4,500 years and there's no reason to think it can't work for longer timelines under the right conditions.
The introduction of papyrus starts a period of lost history in studies of Mesopotamia.
You are indeed correct.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
Not doing to defend this guy, but, really? No malfeasance is needed here.
I doubt anyone could find data from the research I did in the early 2000s. I left the university, my advisor for a different one number of years later, the servers are long since decommissioned, most of the IT staff were let go or quit in response. I doubt they have been keeping long term archives. I wouldn't know how to access them even if they were.
Thing is, it doesn't matter. The stuff that worked well has long since been replicated and built on and the stuff that proved less useful, well, the paper is there for reference, but no one really cares since it didn't stand the test of time. Either way, 20 years hence, the original anything, really, isn't useful except as a historical curiosity.
We didn't even use version control then. I could probably restore stuff from the point I started using CVS since I'm a digital hoarder with good enough backup policies, but I am somewhat unusual in this regard.
Same University Where Students Admit Cheating (Score:2)
Seems to be a pattern. How privileged people "learn."
https://stanforddaily.com/2023... [stanforddaily.com]
Sociopaths bubble up to positions of power (Score:2)
No secret. Never has been. Short of utopian visions of making a New Man, the best way we've found to rein in their more harmful predilections is the adversarial system of checks and balances, where all claims are subject to scrutiny and refutation, and no one, no matter their job title or the quantity of letters after their name or medals on their chest, is beyond scrutiny.
I'm just here for (Score:1)
The Hippocratic Oath is no more (Score:1)