This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"As of July 22, 2022, Lesné had not commented, and Ashe had declined to comment on the investigation conducted by the University of Minnesota, but **she** stated via email that:...."
SHE? This is a man surely? Rustygecko ( talk) 05:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Lukelahood and Graham Beards: might one of you be able to create a stub, or write a sub-section somewhere, about Aβ*56 ? Also, review the terminology I've used in this article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. If it is so important, why wasn’t Ab*56 mentioned in Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease ? (I am not a specialist) — Lewisiscrazy ( talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Response from Alz Society UK. Between this, and all other new sources, I'm coming to the conclusion this whole story is about what happened at U of M, and we don't need an article, or section, about AB*56 at all. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Lewisiscrazy I see you have added an interlanguage link See also to the French Wikipedia at amyloid hypothesis (awesome!); once we get sorted where to park additional info about star 56 in an en.wiki article, are you able to write the French articles? I notice it is well covered in the French blogs ... and wonder who speaks French and can monitor coverage at the French Wikipedia (I'm good for Spanish only). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Here https://www.idref.fr/069067929 — Lewisiscrazy ( talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
in Le Monde today https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2022/07/25/recherche-sur-la-maladie-d-alzheimer-des-soupcons-d-inconduites-scientifiques_6136080_1650684.html -- Lewisiscrazy ( talk) 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
There is new information there: because I don't speak French, I will excerpt my planned additions for scrutiny here on talk, before adding them to the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Lewisiscrazy might you check the Google translate below and see my six questions under the bits I'd like to work in? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Le Monde Quote [1] | Google translate |
---|---|
En 2006, alors postdoctorant dans l’équipe américaine, Sylvain Lesné est le premier auteur d’un article publié dans Nature, rapportant l’identification d’une protéine oligomère, Aβ*56, qui, purifiée et injectée à de jeunes rats, induit des troubles de mémoire. A l’époque, l’hypothèse montante est que la première étape du développement de la maladie d’Alzheimer est liée à l’agrégation entre les neurones de protéines β-amyloïdes, qui finissent par former des plaques. Les résultats de Sylvain Lesné vont dans le sens de cette théorie amyloïde, en suggérant le rôle précoce de la protéine Aβ*56 dans l’apparition des troubles. | In 2006, while a postdoctoral fellow in the American team, Sylvain Lesné was the first author of an article published in Nature, reporting the identification of an oligomeric protein, Aβ*56, which, purified and injected into young rats, induces memory problems. At the time, the rising hypothesis was that the first stage in the development of Alzheimer's disease was linked to the aggregation between neurons of β-amyloid proteins, which eventually formed plaques. Sylvain Lesné's results are in line with this amyloid theory, by suggesting the early role of the Aβ*56 protein in the onset of disorders. |
A-t-elle manqué de vigilance vis-à-vis du travail de son protégé ? Il semble que celui-ci ait été adepte des petits arrangements avec les données avant même son arrivée aux Etats-Unis. Plusieurs de ses articles, cosignés notamment avec Denis Vivien (Cyceron, Caen), entre 2003 et 2005, sont signalés sur PubPeer pour des duplications suspectes. Interrogé par Science, ce professeur de neurosciences indique avoir retiré un article avant publication, après avoir eu des soupçons sur des données de Sylvain Lesné, qu’il avait alors demandé à d’autres étudiants de reproduire – en vain. « Je ne souhaite pas épiloguer sur le cas de Sylvain Lesné, avec qui j’ai décidé de stopper toutes relations scientifiques et personnelles depuis bien longtemps », écrit le chercheur au Monde. Ni Sylvain Lesné ni Karen Ashe n’ont répondu à nos sollicitations. | Did she lack vigilance vis-à-vis the work of her protege? It seems that he was a fan of small arrangements with data even before his arrival in the United States. Several of his articles, co-authored in particular with Denis Vivien (Cyceron, Caen), between 2003 and 2005, are reported on PubPeer for suspicious duplications. Asked by Science, this professor of neuroscience indicates that he withdrew an article before publication, after having had suspicions about data from Sylvain Lesné, which he then asked other students to reproduce – in vain. "I do not wish to dwell on the case of Sylvain Lesné, with whom I decided to stop all scientific and personal relations a long time ago", writes the researcher to Le Monde. Neither Sylvain Lesné nor Karen Ashe responded to our requests.
Note to self work in Piller here on Vivien, says the same thing] |
... Frédéric Checler, qui dirige un laboratoire de recherche sur les maladies d’Alzheimer et de Parkinson, à l’Institut de pharmacologie moléculaire et cellulaire (Sophia Antipolis). Le chercheur se souvient d’ailleurs qu’à sa publication, l’article avait suscité des réticences dans la communauté, pas tant pour une suspicion de manipulations de données que pour des raisons techniques. « Il est extrêmement difficile d’obtenir une protéine agrégée pure, et d’être certain que sa nature reste la même après sa purification », souligne-t-il. | ... Frédéric Checler , who directs a research laboratory on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, at the Institute of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology ( Sophia Antipolis). The researcher also remembers that when it was published, the article had aroused reluctance in the community, not so much for a suspicion of data manipulation as for technical reasons. "It is extremely difficult to obtain a pure aggregate protein, and to be certain that its nature remains the same after its purification", he underlines. |
Sources
|
---|
References
|
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Stopping there for now, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I am unconvinced his doctoral thesis belongs where it is, in the main body of the article, until/unless a secondary source discusses it. Does anyone have P or G guidance in that respect? User:PamD? I could be underinformed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
we already know he spent years of his life working on it, by the fact that he has a PhD"? No. We know he spent 3 years doing something, but some people do a PhD and then move out into a different field altogether. That's why I think it's relevant to describe someone's PhD, whether the title is, or is not, in the area of their later work. Pam D 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Lewisiscrazy, thank you for picking up one of my (many, habitual [2]) typos here. Regarding "redundancy" here, we shouldn't force readers to click out to get context for jargon used, and describing it as an amyloid protein was intended to help in that regard. Can you suggest an alternate approach to provide some brief context, or a way/place to work back in amyloid protein? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Overall, I urge that we wait for more sources to cover the topic before going too much further in depth than I already have, so we don't get too far out ahead on this until we have an abundance of scientific sources. I think it curious that we have so far heard from major UK news outlets, but none in the US (eg New York Times, Washington Post), and I've already seen a few instances of minor contradictions in what is reported so far, along with a hugely sensationalized report in The Daily Kos, which draws what preliminarily appear to be hyperbolic conclusions. Let's try not to repeat what could turn out to be laypress inaccuracies and make sure what we write will stand the test of time. The basics are in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Myxomatosis57 please see my query here. These articles are both BLPs; we must exercise caution. So far, all investigators are still out (NIH, UMN, Nature), and we have allegations by Science. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Re this revert of an IP edit, there are no new sources saying anything different. There are many marginal sources that are re-iterating the Science paper and adding their own hype, but basing it on no new input (as occurred with Le Monde, which did go out and interview some people). No credible source (that is, one that isn't just regurgitating the Science report while adding a sensational headline) has surfaced that says anything different. So far. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
In July of this year it was discovered this person may have falsified research with large implications. 74.81.173.42 ( talk) 01:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Czar-peter-123 regarding this citation tag, please note that Wikipedia leads do not need to be cited when the content is summarizing text already cited in the article. In this case, that text is cited in the body to at least eight high quality sources.
See also WP:CITATIONOVERKILL; demanding citation of well cited text is poor editing. Burdening the lead with citation overkill to deal with POV pushing is also poor editing.
Because of the tag, I have replicated in this version of the lead all eight citations that are already in the body. The tag is gratuitous, and based on no prior discussion. Please justify the tag with some policy based reasoning so the citation overkill can be removed.
To the best of my knowledge, I have read every source that has come out since the allegations surfaced, except some in languages I don't read. I have seen not one credible or high quality source that states anything different. If you insist on keeping well cited text summarized to the lead burdened with citation overkill, please provide high quality reliable sources that say anything different. Hint: For medicine, that does not include The Daily Kos and the like. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Rara929, in this edit, you started a new paragraph without naming the (pronoun) subject, and added incorrect use of bolding; I've correct both. [4] [5]
In this edit, you duplicated a citation for the Science article by Charles Piller (the sentence is already cited to Piller), and you added a webforum as a source (a source that was already in the article, so you should have used the already named ref [6]). The webforum is not a fact-checked source; it is only used in this article when secondary sources refer to it or under the specific circumstances where a primary source can be used. I've removed both of those sources. [7] [8]
It might be more helpful for you to discuss your edits on talk and get feedback before making them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Rara929, in this edit, you again added a webforum source to content that is already amply cited. That is not an optimal source for that content, and is not needed, but I've left it for now, so that you can have a look at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. That source is already named in the citations. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Is the paper actually formally "retracted"? It's still published, albeit with an editorial note, on the Nature website. While many would regard this as being as-good-as-retracted, should we describe it as such here? I've changed the text in the lede as "since retracted by all its other authors" to reflect this. — The Anome ( talk) 10:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Now retracted, and article updated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXUSE is not a blanket permision to remove infoboxes at whim, but says that the usage of infoboxes is to be determined by discussion. so here we go. I added the infobox because Lesné's age and seniority relative to his peers is highly salient here. Please discuss. — The Anome ( talk) 22:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"As of July 22, 2022, Lesné had not commented, and Ashe had declined to comment on the investigation conducted by the University of Minnesota, but **she** stated via email that:...."
SHE? This is a man surely? Rustygecko ( talk) 05:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Lukelahood and Graham Beards: might one of you be able to create a stub, or write a sub-section somewhere, about Aβ*56 ? Also, review the terminology I've used in this article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. If it is so important, why wasn’t Ab*56 mentioned in Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease ? (I am not a specialist) — Lewisiscrazy ( talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Response from Alz Society UK. Between this, and all other new sources, I'm coming to the conclusion this whole story is about what happened at U of M, and we don't need an article, or section, about AB*56 at all. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Lewisiscrazy I see you have added an interlanguage link See also to the French Wikipedia at amyloid hypothesis (awesome!); once we get sorted where to park additional info about star 56 in an en.wiki article, are you able to write the French articles? I notice it is well covered in the French blogs ... and wonder who speaks French and can monitor coverage at the French Wikipedia (I'm good for Spanish only). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Here https://www.idref.fr/069067929 — Lewisiscrazy ( talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
in Le Monde today https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2022/07/25/recherche-sur-la-maladie-d-alzheimer-des-soupcons-d-inconduites-scientifiques_6136080_1650684.html -- Lewisiscrazy ( talk) 17:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
There is new information there: because I don't speak French, I will excerpt my planned additions for scrutiny here on talk, before adding them to the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Lewisiscrazy might you check the Google translate below and see my six questions under the bits I'd like to work in? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Le Monde Quote [1] | Google translate |
---|---|
En 2006, alors postdoctorant dans l’équipe américaine, Sylvain Lesné est le premier auteur d’un article publié dans Nature, rapportant l’identification d’une protéine oligomère, Aβ*56, qui, purifiée et injectée à de jeunes rats, induit des troubles de mémoire. A l’époque, l’hypothèse montante est que la première étape du développement de la maladie d’Alzheimer est liée à l’agrégation entre les neurones de protéines β-amyloïdes, qui finissent par former des plaques. Les résultats de Sylvain Lesné vont dans le sens de cette théorie amyloïde, en suggérant le rôle précoce de la protéine Aβ*56 dans l’apparition des troubles. | In 2006, while a postdoctoral fellow in the American team, Sylvain Lesné was the first author of an article published in Nature, reporting the identification of an oligomeric protein, Aβ*56, which, purified and injected into young rats, induces memory problems. At the time, the rising hypothesis was that the first stage in the development of Alzheimer's disease was linked to the aggregation between neurons of β-amyloid proteins, which eventually formed plaques. Sylvain Lesné's results are in line with this amyloid theory, by suggesting the early role of the Aβ*56 protein in the onset of disorders. |
A-t-elle manqué de vigilance vis-à-vis du travail de son protégé ? Il semble que celui-ci ait été adepte des petits arrangements avec les données avant même son arrivée aux Etats-Unis. Plusieurs de ses articles, cosignés notamment avec Denis Vivien (Cyceron, Caen), entre 2003 et 2005, sont signalés sur PubPeer pour des duplications suspectes. Interrogé par Science, ce professeur de neurosciences indique avoir retiré un article avant publication, après avoir eu des soupçons sur des données de Sylvain Lesné, qu’il avait alors demandé à d’autres étudiants de reproduire – en vain. « Je ne souhaite pas épiloguer sur le cas de Sylvain Lesné, avec qui j’ai décidé de stopper toutes relations scientifiques et personnelles depuis bien longtemps », écrit le chercheur au Monde. Ni Sylvain Lesné ni Karen Ashe n’ont répondu à nos sollicitations. | Did she lack vigilance vis-à-vis the work of her protege? It seems that he was a fan of small arrangements with data even before his arrival in the United States. Several of his articles, co-authored in particular with Denis Vivien (Cyceron, Caen), between 2003 and 2005, are reported on PubPeer for suspicious duplications. Asked by Science, this professor of neuroscience indicates that he withdrew an article before publication, after having had suspicions about data from Sylvain Lesné, which he then asked other students to reproduce – in vain. "I do not wish to dwell on the case of Sylvain Lesné, with whom I decided to stop all scientific and personal relations a long time ago", writes the researcher to Le Monde. Neither Sylvain Lesné nor Karen Ashe responded to our requests.
Note to self work in Piller here on Vivien, says the same thing] |
... Frédéric Checler, qui dirige un laboratoire de recherche sur les maladies d’Alzheimer et de Parkinson, à l’Institut de pharmacologie moléculaire et cellulaire (Sophia Antipolis). Le chercheur se souvient d’ailleurs qu’à sa publication, l’article avait suscité des réticences dans la communauté, pas tant pour une suspicion de manipulations de données que pour des raisons techniques. « Il est extrêmement difficile d’obtenir une protéine agrégée pure, et d’être certain que sa nature reste la même après sa purification », souligne-t-il. | ... Frédéric Checler , who directs a research laboratory on Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, at the Institute of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology ( Sophia Antipolis). The researcher also remembers that when it was published, the article had aroused reluctance in the community, not so much for a suspicion of data manipulation as for technical reasons. "It is extremely difficult to obtain a pure aggregate protein, and to be certain that its nature remains the same after its purification", he underlines. |
Sources
|
---|
References
|
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Stopping there for now, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
I am unconvinced his doctoral thesis belongs where it is, in the main body of the article, until/unless a secondary source discusses it. Does anyone have P or G guidance in that respect? User:PamD? I could be underinformed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
we already know he spent years of his life working on it, by the fact that he has a PhD"? No. We know he spent 3 years doing something, but some people do a PhD and then move out into a different field altogether. That's why I think it's relevant to describe someone's PhD, whether the title is, or is not, in the area of their later work. Pam D 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Lewisiscrazy, thank you for picking up one of my (many, habitual [2]) typos here. Regarding "redundancy" here, we shouldn't force readers to click out to get context for jargon used, and describing it as an amyloid protein was intended to help in that regard. Can you suggest an alternate approach to provide some brief context, or a way/place to work back in amyloid protein? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Overall, I urge that we wait for more sources to cover the topic before going too much further in depth than I already have, so we don't get too far out ahead on this until we have an abundance of scientific sources. I think it curious that we have so far heard from major UK news outlets, but none in the US (eg New York Times, Washington Post), and I've already seen a few instances of minor contradictions in what is reported so far, along with a hugely sensationalized report in The Daily Kos, which draws what preliminarily appear to be hyperbolic conclusions. Let's try not to repeat what could turn out to be laypress inaccuracies and make sure what we write will stand the test of time. The basics are in. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Myxomatosis57 please see my query here. These articles are both BLPs; we must exercise caution. So far, all investigators are still out (NIH, UMN, Nature), and we have allegations by Science. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Re this revert of an IP edit, there are no new sources saying anything different. There are many marginal sources that are re-iterating the Science paper and adding their own hype, but basing it on no new input (as occurred with Le Monde, which did go out and interview some people). No credible source (that is, one that isn't just regurgitating the Science report while adding a sensational headline) has surfaced that says anything different. So far. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
In July of this year it was discovered this person may have falsified research with large implications. 74.81.173.42 ( talk) 01:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Czar-peter-123 regarding this citation tag, please note that Wikipedia leads do not need to be cited when the content is summarizing text already cited in the article. In this case, that text is cited in the body to at least eight high quality sources.
See also WP:CITATIONOVERKILL; demanding citation of well cited text is poor editing. Burdening the lead with citation overkill to deal with POV pushing is also poor editing.
Because of the tag, I have replicated in this version of the lead all eight citations that are already in the body. The tag is gratuitous, and based on no prior discussion. Please justify the tag with some policy based reasoning so the citation overkill can be removed.
To the best of my knowledge, I have read every source that has come out since the allegations surfaced, except some in languages I don't read. I have seen not one credible or high quality source that states anything different. If you insist on keeping well cited text summarized to the lead burdened with citation overkill, please provide high quality reliable sources that say anything different. Hint: For medicine, that does not include The Daily Kos and the like. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Rara929, in this edit, you started a new paragraph without naming the (pronoun) subject, and added incorrect use of bolding; I've correct both. [4] [5]
In this edit, you duplicated a citation for the Science article by Charles Piller (the sentence is already cited to Piller), and you added a webforum as a source (a source that was already in the article, so you should have used the already named ref [6]). The webforum is not a fact-checked source; it is only used in this article when secondary sources refer to it or under the specific circumstances where a primary source can be used. I've removed both of those sources. [7] [8]
It might be more helpful for you to discuss your edits on talk and get feedback before making them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Rara929, in this edit, you again added a webforum source to content that is already amply cited. That is not an optimal source for that content, and is not needed, but I've left it for now, so that you can have a look at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once. That source is already named in the citations. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Is the paper actually formally "retracted"? It's still published, albeit with an editorial note, on the Nature website. While many would regard this as being as-good-as-retracted, should we describe it as such here? I've changed the text in the lede as "since retracted by all its other authors" to reflect this. — The Anome ( talk) 10:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Now retracted, and article updated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:INFOBOXUSE is not a blanket permision to remove infoboxes at whim, but says that the usage of infoboxes is to be determined by discussion. so here we go. I added the infobox because Lesné's age and seniority relative to his peers is highly salient here. Please discuss. — The Anome ( talk) 22:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)