Posts by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
(DIR) Post #AmWdf1jkFZOcc3rU9I by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:17:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Second big question. This lab churned out untrustworthy research. Yet according to publication and citation data, as well as his appointment, the field basically elected him leader.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf2Pvij8kitbAu0 by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:17:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Did nobody in the field notice the work was unreliable? Is it possible that this unreliable work was no worse or maybe still better than most of the rest of the field's production?
(DIR) Post #AmWdf39J01R6zcpPd2 by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:17:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Rather than neurodegeneration research accumulating carefully validated results, this gives the impression of a field barely treading water in a swamp of untrustworthy work.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf42xf5xJmErrNY by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:18:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In this context, James Heather's recent estimate that 1/7 papers contains falsified or fabricated results suddenly seems very plausible. (I read the preprint and believe the estimate is plausible.)https://osf.io/s4gce
(DIR) Post #AmWdf4o6pnfa8SvVrs by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:18:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
James also asked whether cheats might be more prolific than honest researchers. And of course, like here, they are. Almost by definition - people cheat for speed.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf5Oycj9zyoAxKi by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:18:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Third big question. What are NIH going to do about their huge procedural weaknesses this affair reveals?
(DIR) Post #AmWdf60uLhV9sRvFSK by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:19:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
For NIH-funded researchers, the organisation usually seems quite unintersted in integrity issues beyond emitting incantations about "taking integrity issues very seriously" after every new scandal.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf6b4BGQPgaq7oe by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:19:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Here, somewhat surprisingly, NIH had carried out some sort of investigation, presumably following initial posts on PubPeer. Perhaps the in-house employment and high-ranking position of Masliah caught their attention and obliged them to do something.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf7AW3SmVSXQR4S by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:20:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Nevertheless, a combination of PubPeer, an alert Charles Piller and a couple of volunteer analysts ran rings and looped the loop around the NIH investigation, which only concluded regarding 2 papers. Official investigations are crap, again.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf7x58td5tA9Dlo by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:20:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Reading between the lines, it seems that NIH are scrambling to adjust to the new information they failed to investigate and were not planning a severe response, since Masliah was still representing the organisation this week. This remains to be clarified.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf8hWMEmCDBsJ9c by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:20:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The levels of wasted human and financial resources, the potential corruption of science and its administration, are significant. Masliah operated with impunity. NIH procedures are totally ineffective at detecting or deterring career-long, industrial-scale cheating.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf9IO9AGc3X7kcS by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:21:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
In fact, convince me that NIH procedures don't in practice facilitate and encourage such cheating. After all, they regularly funded and then hired Masliah.
(DIR) Post #AmWdf9qm5JlxmBDDDU by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:21:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Fourth big question. Conflicts of interest. I assume (but don't know) that Masliah wound up his lab upon taking the NIA job. But, without suggesting any specific transactions, it seems likely that Masliah's position might have influenced (negatively) desire to report his misconduct.
(DIR) Post #AmWdfAZnNvmk1oHAOG by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:21:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Similarly, the industry pursuit of multiple therapeutic strategies based upon his work could well have been influenced (positively) by his position. Did he retain a direct financial interest in these? Is this a CoI to be managed? Is it managed?
(DIR) Post #AmWdfBD91dGDzqgaiu by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:22:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Fifth big question. When will the clinical trials unethically based upon unreliable work be halted?
(DIR) Post #AmWdfBuOQpr69yv88O by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:22:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
A few loose ends. NIH don't want to screen for misconduct when they hire people, because of the "difficulty of the process". I'm going to predict it would be a whole lot easier and more effective if they hired Mu Yang and Matthew Schrag (or several other analysts).
(DIR) Post #AmWdfCo35uNIwaxZsu by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:23:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
And, of course, there is a pile of public information on PubPeer just waiting to be "discovered" and acted upon by a permanently surprised officialdom. As this affair shows, pulling on the thread of a couple of PubPeer comments sometimes (mixing my metaphors) opens a whole can of worms.
(DIR) Post #AmWdfDdS0nUXW10d0K by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:23:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Science EiC Holden Thorp (who has a good record on dealing with misconduct) gave an unfortunately nonchalant quote about seeking a "response" from the authors and making "adjustments" to a paper if "required".
(DIR) Post #AmWdfETurjSW8jYWmW by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:23:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
There is an alarmingly naive quote from a researcher in the field suggesting the synuclein antibody strategy still might be effective. People cheat for a reason, and random curative treatment strategies for complex pathologies do not have a 50% chance of working.
(DIR) Post #AmWdfFBAGw3OIrn4C0 by BorisBarbour@mastodon.social
2024-09-29T13:24:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Finally, congratulations to Charles Piller, his collaborators and all of the unrewarded analysts who brought this affair to light.