It takes AGES for malfeasance to get consequences. The Wakefield MMR study (responsible for energizing the modern anti vaccination movement), published in 1998, wasn’t retracted until 2010. (He was also stripped of his license to practice medicine and has consistently doubled down since which has paid off dearly, marrying supermodels and being a literal millionaire).
The amyloid plaque hypothesis for Alzheimer’s that was based on falsified data from 2006 wasn’t retracted until 2024. This had thousands of citations, possibly tens of thousands, and the first author continues to defend the data manipulation as overblown. Essentially something like that the underlying experiments were sound, we just edited the images for clarity, there was no intent, all (8!) of my coauthors agreed to the retraction because they’re laaaaame, basically every drug made based on this hypothesis doesn’t work because of some other reason, trust me bro.
It’s very difficult to counter this. It takes serious effort to generate data contrary to the evidence presented. However, funding would help. But additionally this is something where criminal charges would be merited. Wakefield has created a world in which we moved backward for his own financial enrichment. One could argue that the children dead from measles outbreaks are in part his fault. He lost his license, sure, but this is meaningless. He is an antivax icon, he married Elle McPherson, he does podcasts and documentaries, speaking engagements, etc. he is paid far more than many doctors with none of the stress and liability. And it’s fairly clear his original intent was to discourage people from the MMR vaccine to push them towards a product he had a vested financial interest in. The antivax stuff was not his goal but it worked out because he is a sociopathic grifter.
Lesne is different. He is a scientist that is probably pushed to publish at all costs and did so. Perhaps he is honest and his manipulation was simply to improve clarity. If it was not and he was pushing to get an influential paper out then he is guilty of wasting billions in funding and tens of thousands of hours of researcher time as well as countless lives wasted doing clinical trials for treatments that were never worth exploring.
What’s a viable consequence for these people? Life in prison? This is such a huge crime against society. Similarly the Monsanto and Coca Cola ghost writing research, everything involved in tobacco, Purdue and OxyContin addiction, etc. the last one was treated as a civil matter but are these not criminal? Countless lives were destroyed
Sometimes I feel sad I am incapable of chicanery like this, it sounds like the only path to an affluent life.
He is an antivax icon, he married Elle McPherson, he does podcasts and documentaries, speaking engagements, etc. he is paid far more than many doctors with none of the stress and liability.
Similarly the Monsanto and Coca Cola ghost writing research, everything involved in tobacco, Purdue and OxyContin addiction, etc. the last one was treated as a civil matter but are these not criminal? Countless lives were destroyed.
Attention is all you need.
Philosophical questions of liability don’t matter anymore; optics do. Wakefield didn’t just win that game; he blew it away. Monsanto, big tobacco, even Purdue drug their public sentiment battles on long enough not to win, but not to lose.
I mean no offense, but I keep seeing scientists ask “why is all this happening?” on Twitter, as they presumably pass mobs of folks glued to algorithms and influencers gaming them on thier phones, and politicians now emulating thier behavior.
Hence I hate to sound so cynical, but I think your question:
What’s a viable consequence for these people? Life in prison?
Is pointless.
Science and journalism aren’t front-and-center anymore. Frames of reference are intimately manipulated. To quote AOC, “everything feels increasingly like a scam.” And pondering what these massively wealthy entities deserve is a waste of energy until that festering problem is addressed.
The amyloid plaque one had 2.500 citations, by the way, and apparently it’s the second most cited paper to be retracted. The most cited retracted paper is Jiang, Y., Jahagirdar, B., Reinhardt, R. et al.: Pluripotency of mesenchymal stem cells derived from adult marrow, which claimed that adult stem cells could become any type of cell.
The problem here is not science but capitalism, we should really get rid of this ideology
And more importantly, replace it with a system that makes it impossible for this type of controlling wealth to exist in the first place, otherwise history will repeat itself once again.
Agreed
I’m a Biologist, years ago our lab got federal funding to research glyphosates potential as a neurotoxin and its capabilities to be used as a weapon. The DoD was concerned enough about this chemical that they poured the most funding I’ve ever seen at my university into a project.
Then people wonder why people don’t trust “science”
Everyone responsible for this should be in jail
Science is fine. How it is published and funded is deeply flawed.
That’s why I used scare quotes
The problem is, how it’s published and funded is a huge part of the institutions surrounding science, to the point that they’ve become plesionyms.
Unfortunately, many people can’t tell the difference
Best I can offer is a token fine that will be reduced on appeal.
This problem could be solved if funding was also awarded to projects that can verify important results like this. Effectively allow scientists to verify the results thoroughly. This means to redo the entire study! Peer review is there to catch blatant lapses in logic and basic science. But in order to see if those results are as they say you have to redo it.
There is a lot of trust between scientists that they will act morally and truthfully but these days when funding is scarce and pressure is high some will resort to all sorts of shortcuts. The most used is over inflated goals to get the funding. That is benign enough. Others will tweak the results to get ahead and claim their place in front of the others and hope to fix the problem down the line.
Funding doesn’t allow repeat studies, studies with ideas too close to what has been done before etc. Also the time allotted is too short. 3 years is not enough to go from zero to finished idea ready for the market, yet that’s the aim most of the time. How on earth do people think anyone will have the time and brain space to verify what others have done and force them to retract it?
I can see how people can start to be skeptical of science but the truth of the matter is that science should be funded without the expectation of profitability in the short term. People should demand better funding for schools and research. And then ask that all science of held to the highest standard at all times! Having cheap fast science to the highest standard doesn’t work! If you don’t believe me have a look at the titan submersible to get an idea. We wouldn’t be here posting messages on this platform if science was funded the same 80 years ago.
Science shouldn’t be means tested. Neoliberalism will kill us all.
Wtf does that mean
Sorry! I misunderstood your reply
It’s OK. :) My brain jumped around, it can be hard to follow. I was not clear.
Thank you for the book recommendation! I just bought it. Light reading for the holidays
The damage done.
Does anyone know what the ethical objections acrually were here?
I would have thought they would have specifically called out data falsification if that were the problem that resulted in the paper being pulled - otherwise it leaves the door open to misinterpretation
It’s part of a larger issue of science and research being funded and backed by big companies that benefit from it not saying their product as bad. There are defunct research articles that state smoking is healthy for you from long ago. A lot of those researchers and doctors were later found to have gotten kick backs from companies that benefited from the positive research. This is just a modern example of money meddling in research for their benefit despite knowing the opposite.
What is save or not in the chem and pharma industry in the capitalism depends of the profit it brings, nothing else.

I feel like any paper that’s published that cited a paper which got retracted, should automatically be reviewed and assessed to determine if they should also be retracted.
I agree, except it should be retracted automatically, & only re-admitted if the review is successful in ascertaining legitimacy, & all papers that cite retracted papers receive the same treatment while allowing them to be automatically re-instated if their sources become legitimate after review; let the psudoscience fall like the house of cards that it is.







