Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Science journalist Charles Piller, working with neuroscientist Matthew Schrag and independent image-forensics experts, published a six-month investigation finding apparent digital manipulation (duplicated bands, spliced images) in Western blot figures from papers by Sylvain Lesné, including his highly influential 2006 Nature paper proposing that a specific amyloid protein (Aβ*56) causes memory loss. The report noted that, 15 years on, few other labs had been able to detect Aβ*56 in human tissue at all. This is documented investigative journalism and forensic image analysis, not a laboratory research study, and it triggered university and journal investigations.
Key findings
- Independent forensic analysts (Elisabeth Bik, Jana Christopher) identified apparent duplicated bands and composited images across roughly 20 of Lesné's papers, about 10 involving Aβ*56
- The flagged 2006 Nature paper had been cited by roughly 2,300 other scholarly articles
- Nature issued an editorial expression of concern shortly after publication (July 14, 2022)
- University of Minnesota and NIH were notified and opened reviews/investigations
- Independent labs had largely failed to replicate detection of Aβ*56 in human brain tissue in the 15+ years since the original claim
Why it matters
Science journalist Charles Piller, working with neuroscientist Matthew Schrag and independent image-forensics experts, published a six-month investigation finding apparent digital manipulation (duplicated bands, spliced images) in Western blot figures from papers by Sylvain Lesné, including his highly influential 2006 Nature paper proposing that a specific amyloid protein (Aβ*56) causes memory loss. The report noted that, 15 years on, few other labs had been able to detect Aβ*56 in human tissue at all.
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
Limitations
This is investigative journalism and independent forensic image review, not a peer-reviewed research study or a formal institutional misconduct finding; at the time of publication the allegations were unadjudicated. The subsequent University of Minnesota inquiry reportedly cleared Lesné specifically on the 2006 Nature paper in an initial review even as the paper was later retracted for image manipulation, and investigations into his other papers continued for years afterward — so the full scope of intent versus error was not fully resolved by any single body as of the sources checked.
How this study scored 42/100
Published in a top-tier journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people, randomised / blinded and indexed in PubMed because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 42 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 10 / 10 | Tier 1 — top-tier general journal (Science) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 0 / 2 | No PubMed ID and no DOI — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 26 / 62 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 42 out of 100. |
| Total | 42 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. This record has no DOI, so the citation leaves it out. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Piller, C. (2022). Blots on a field? Science.
Vancouver
Piller C. Blots on a field? Science. 2022.
BibTeX
@article{piller2022-de5afcd9,
author = {Piller, C.},
title = {{Blots on a field?}},
journal = {Science},
year = {2022}
}