How Did ‘Science’ Ruin Science?


Jia Chen
Professor John Horgan
HST-401
01/23/2024

How Did ‘Science’ Ruin Science?


    Could you imagine the publication of a single scientific finding able to ruin 16 years of scientific research? The spoiler named beta-amyloid was reported by a journal article published in Nature in 2006 ——“A specific amyloid-β [beta-amyloid] protein assembly in the brain impairs memory.” According to the definition of disruptiveness provided by Russell Funk and his coworkers (Flam, 2023), the study which had been cited in over 22000 papers (Pelc, 2022) is definitely disruptive and had a huge impact on Alzheimer's research. However, in August 2021, an investigation by Science was undergone after receiving Matthew Schrag’s whistleblowing with his suspicions on image tampering of Sylvain Lesné’s experimental data. As a result, hundreds of images in Sylvain Lesné’s papers were confirmed with apparent alteration and duplication including those used for proving the famous discovery of beta-amyloid. This fraud not only contributes to the waste of billions of NIH funding but also misdirected 16 years of research on Alzheimer's. In addition, people’s trust in science and hope for Alzheimer’s patients break down. 

    An issue attracting my attention by the fraud is a limitation of scientific research especially in biological and medicinal areas—— the replication crisis, which is also known as to reproducibility crisis. Replication as a central issue in any empirical science has been called “the cornerstone of science.” (Schmidt, 2009) A replication experiment should be done to obtain the same results or confirm the same hypothesis by a repetition procedure. However, in the case of beta-amyloid, most other research groups besides Sylvain Lesné’s lab failed to reproduce the results (Pelc, 2022) showing the correlation between Alzheimer's disease and beta-amyloid even in the animal model. The lack of reproducibility in biomedical research addresses concerns about potentially dire consequences for drug development (Hunter, 2017). 

    Another concern about the trustworthiness of science and scientists was sparked by the fraud. Based on the article written by F.D. Flam, she discussed the attitudes and public distrust of science and scientists. As the results posted by Pew Research Center and cited by F.D. Flam, American’s trust in scientists is 14 points lower than it was at the early stages of the pandemic (Funk, 2015). In Flam’s discussion, it’s arguable whether Americans are losing trust in science, but it is sure that people tend to find scientists on the same side as them. In this case, an alarming concept is necessary to be discussed and clarified, the relationship between science and scientists. 

    Commonly, when introducing scientific concepts like theories, principles, or experimental findings, it is common to use rephrase “based on the studies of XXX (the name of a research center or author).” Aligned with the argument mentioned by F.D. Flam, statements represented with the phrase “according to scientists” are more persuasive and convincing (Flam, 2016). The authority of scientists is the foundation of the reliance on scientific knowledge. A snake in the grass is that scientists are individuals with personal interests, biases, and a tendency to make mistakes (Elliott and Resnik, 2014). Several factors contributing to influence the experimental results, besides objective techniques and procedures, involve science communication and the funding effect—— “research results tend to be positively associated with the interests of the funders or investigators” (Bekelman et al. 2003). In the case of beta-amyloid, researchers’ interest is highly correlated with the development and application of beta-amyloid, which is used as a target to investigate drugs for Alzheimer’s disease. Overturning or correcting previous results meant a huge loss and hurt on reputation of Sylvain Lesné and his group, and at the same time, the negative results of finding beta-amyloid reported by other labs attracted no interest in journals or publicity. A possible explanation is the confirmation bias that people tend to accept the opinions that confirm and support their prior beliefs or values. The interest of researchers and the forced silence of the skeptics made the ‘science’ of beta-amyloid, the Messianic discovery of Alzheimer’s disease, ruined the science of Alzheimer's. 
 
 
Works Cited
Flam, F. D. (2023, December 23). Have Scientific Breakthroughs Declined? Bloomberg. Retrieved January 23, 2024, from https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-23/have-scientific-breakthroughs-declined
Pelc, Corrie. Alzheimer’s Study Controversy: What Does It Mean for Future Research? 2 Aug. 2022, www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/alzheimers-study-controversy-what-does-it-mean-for-future-research. 
Schmidt, Stefan. “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology, vol. 13, no. 2, SAGE Publications, June 2009, pp. 90–100. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108. 
Hunter, Philip. “The Reproducibility ‘Crisis.’” EMBO Reports, vol. 18, no. 9, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Aug. 2017, pp. 1493–96. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201744876. 
Funk, Cary. “Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society | Pew Research Center.” Pew Research Center Science & Society, 27 Aug. 2020, www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society.  
Flam, F. D. (2016, November 6). Question Authority, But Trust Science. Bloomberg. Retrieved January 23, 2024, from https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-06/question-authority-but-trust-science.Elliott, Kevin C., and David B. Resnik. “Scientific Reproducibility, Human Error, and Public Policy.” BioScience, vol. 65, no. 1, Oxford UP (OUP), Nov. 2014, pp. 5–6. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu197.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Molecules, Models, and Magic: The Exciting World of Computational Chemistry

Vrinda Modi I often spend time in a little cubicle in McLean in the freezing corporate cold wrapped in a blanket in the Hoboken summers sipping on free coffee from the office above. It almost always tastes like chalk, but the routine is so embedded in me. Hence, this is the perfect opportunity to talk a little more about my research in computational chemistry here at Stevens and the advances I expect in the next few years. This field excites me because it bridges my interest in chemistry with modern computing techniques, a powerful tool for advancing our understanding of chemical reactions and molecular interactions. This means we are a dry lab – running simulations on computers. No chemicals, no PPE, just models and algorithms. But why does computational chemistry exist in the first place, especially when chemistry is so rooted in physical matter? The answer is efficiency. Modeling molecules on a computer saves us from ordering chemicals, waiting for deliveries (a delay in chemistry t...
Read more

Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond

Image
  Matthew P Kearney Scaling the Potential of Vertical Farming Going into 2025 and Beyond      Vertical farming may seem like something out of a futuristic movie, but they are very real in today’s agricultural industry. Vertical farming may promote a stronger relationship between urbanization and sustainable crop production. Based on recent innovations across agriculture and technology, vertical farming has the potential to revolutionize our current farming system. Through the development of vertical farming-based production lines, cities and otherwise unfarmable areas can be provided with fresh, local, and pesticide-free produce. Vertical farming and other adaptations of agriculture are not new ideas, but instead a historic and human process.      These technologies are ready to meaningfully address global food security through the technological and computational advancements in agriculture. Vertical farming has a promising future, which becomes a case...
Read more

Knot Your Average Problem: How do Tongue Ties Impact Oral Myofunctional Health?

Image
  Hadia Hussain      Knot Your Average Problem: How do Tongue Ties Impact Oral Myofunctional Health? Sitting in the nursery of the dental office where I worked, I reviewed Baby V’s medical history and reports from the Emergency Department at Jersey City Medical Center. I found it odd that, despite multiple visits and clear signs of malnutrition, no physician had been able to diagnose the cause. Baby V, at a low weight of 12 pounds was struggling with difficulty nursing and bottle feeding, excessive gassiness, colic, clicking sounds when feeding, milk dribbling out of the mouth, and mouth breathing—but doctors had dismissed these signs, labeling him as "healthy."  It didn’t make sense as his low weight raised serious concerns.  According to Pediatric specialists Jenny Olson, DNP, and Sarha DeVrieze, ARNP, at the UnityPoint Clinic, a 9-month-old baby boy should weigh anywhere in between the range of 17 to 25 pounds. Baby V's situation was clearly a ...
Read more