Doctored by Charles Piller review – the scandal that derailed Alzheimer's research
Living to old age is quite literally the best thing that any of us could hope for, given the alternative. It's a cruel irony, then, that many of us who make it that far will begin to lose our sense of who we are due to dementia. If you're 65, you've got about a one in 20 chance of developing the most common form, Alzheimer's disease, in the next decade. At 75, it's about one in seven, while those fortunate enough to reach 85 face a one in three chance.
Given the toll this illness takes on sufferers and those around them, hundreds of millions of families around the world are desperate for a medical breakthrough – and for years, headlines have suggested that it might be imminent. Scientists had identified the cause of Alzheimer's, they promised, and potential cures were already being tested.
The subtitle of Doctored – Fraud, Arrogance and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's – serves as a spoiler as to how that story ends, at least for the moment. The fraud uncovered by a rag-tag group of researchers into academic integrity and extensively documented here by Charles Piller, an investigative journalist for the magazine Science, feels like the kind of scandal that should have had wall-to-wall coverage. And yet, outside scientific circles, it remains relatively low-profile.
The story is complicated, but a summary might go like this: for decades, something called the amyloid hypothesis has dominated research into Alzheimer's, determining how billions of dollars of public and private funding into new drugs was spent. The brains of people who had died with it showed clumps of sticky protein – called amyloid plaques – between neurons. It seemed logical that these might be responsible for the disease's symptoms. And while this became the main line of inquiry, it never quite delivered on its early promise. Many people with amyloid plaques didn't have signs of Alzheimer's, for example. Something seemed to be missing.
And then came what seemed like decisive proof: a 2006 paper from the University of Minnesota, which went on to become one of the most cited in the field, showed that a sub-type of amyloid led to memory impairment. It wasn't until 2022 that scientific sleuths suggested that key images on which the research relied might have been Photoshopped to better fit the hypothesis. At first, the scientists fought back against the claims, but the 2006 paper has now been retracted, as have others based around the same findings. As the book explains, investigations continue and several key figures involved deny any knowledge of wrongdoing.
The implication is that years of work and billions of dollars spent on Alzheimer's research may have been carried out on the basis of fraudulent evidence. The scale of the harm caused and damage done is likely to be incalculable.
Piller handles the difficult material patiently and meticulously, as you would expect of an experienced specialist reporter. As the book continues, it becomes an ever more uncomfortable read: the tale starts with the alleged fakery of images by one, or a handful, of scientists. By the end, we're left wondering if any research can really be trusted.
Doctored is clearly the result of brilliant and dogged journalism, but at times all of this work is easier to admire than it is to read. Piller tries to humanise his narrative with pen portraits of key figures, but his habit of doing several of these in a row – and formulaically telling us everyone's place of birth and what their parents and grandparents did – gets repetitive and frustrating.
Sign up to Bookmarks
Discover new books and learn more about your favourite authors with our expert reviews, interviews and news stories. Literary delights delivered direct to you
after newsletter promotion
That's a pity, as the scandal at the book's heart is one that more people should know about. The scientists behind the fraud may have set back the quest to find treatments for Alzheimer's by many years. For those making decisions on the future of scientific and medical research, this book should be compulsory reading.
Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer's by Charles Piller is published by Icon (£20). To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Hobby enjoyed by millions reduces chance of getting young-onset dementia by 40 per cent, scientists discover
Getting out and about on your bike in mid-life could massively slash your risk of dementia, a study of half-a-million Britons suggests. Experts found those who used cycling as their primary mode of transport cut their chances of developing any form of dementia by almost a fifth compared to those using more sedentary modes of transport such as cars, buses or trains. Active cyclists were also found to be 40 per cent less likely to develop young-onset dementia, a form of the memory robbing disorder that strikes the under 65s and which is on the rise in the UK. For dementia specially caused by Alzheimer's disease, cycling was found to reduce the risk by 22 per cent. The authors of the study, from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, said cycling may be protecting the brain in multiple ways. Firstly, the physical effort of cycling boosts blood flow to the brain, reducing inflammation in the organ, and also helps combat conditions linked to dementia risk like obesity. Secondly, the scientists theorised that cyclists were also enjoying a cognitive boost from the activity, from needing to be aware of hazards on the road to mentally mapping their route, which could also be beneficial to brain health. The researchers also found people who reported frequently cycling had on average, a larger hippocampus, part of the brain crucial to memory and learning. Writing in the journal JAMA Network Open, the authors said their findings could encourage adults to opt for a more active form of transport. 'Promoting active travel strategies, particularly cycling, may be associated with lower dementia risk among middle-aged and older adults, which carries substantial public health benefits by encouraging accessible, sustainable practices for cognitive health preservation,' they wrote. One critical finding of the study was that patients who carried the APOE-e4 gene, a genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's, could still benefit from cycling. APOE-e4 is carried by about one in 50 people, including the likes of Avengers star Chris Hemsworth, and has been linked to a ten-fold increased risk of Alzheimer's. Researchers observed that although the benefits of cycling on dementia risk were dampened for people with the gene—compared to those without it—the activity still had some protective affect and be encouraged in this group. The findings were based on an analysis of almost 500,000 Britons with an average of 56 at the start of the study, with the youngest being in their late 40s. This study group, which was split evenly in terms of sex, were asked what form of transport they used most to get around over the previous four weeks. Researchers then followed the health outcomes of the participants for the next 13 years, recording any dementia diagnoses and, if so, what type. At the conclusion, almost 9,000 cases of dementia and 4,000 cases of Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia were recorded. Analysis revealed those who reported cycling as their primary transport method were 19 per cent less likely to develop any form of dementia than those opting for a transport method where they sat down for long periods. The study does have some limitations, which the authors acknowledged. Firstly, is that researchers only used data on four weeks of transport method in their analysis. This means changes participants may have made in the next 13 years to their primary transport method would not have been recorded. Secondly, the research is observational meaning that while a link between cycling and reduced odds of dementia was found it cannot be proven the activity directly influenced the chances of getting the condition and not some other factor. The young-onset dementia finding comes amid a rise of the condition in Britain over the last decade. The latest figures suggest almost 71,000 people in Britain are currently living with this form of dementia, accounting for about 7.5 per cent of all dementia diagnosis. This is a rise of 69 per cent from the figure recorded in 2014. The new study, follows research published last month that found sitting or lying down for long periods could increase your risk of Alzheimer's regardless of how much exercise you do overall. Analysis by the Alzheimer's Society estimates that the overall annual cost of the dementia to the UK is £42billion a year, with families bearing the brunt. An ageing population means these costs – which include lost earnings of unpaid carers – are set to soar to £90billion in the next 15 years. Around 944,000 in the UK are thought to be living with dementia, while the figure is thought to be around seven million in the US. Memory problems, thinking and reasoning difficulties and language problems are common early symptoms of the condition, which then worsen over time. Alzheimer's Research UK analysis found 74,261 people died from dementia in 2022 compared with 69,178 a year earlier, making it the country's biggest killer.
Edinburgh Reporter
a day ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Edinburgh will get its supercomputer after all
The UK Government pressed the pause button on the supercomputer promised for the Scottish capital when it was first elected in 2024, but there is now a green light for the multi-million pound project in the Spending Review to be announced on Wednesday. The government will allocate up to £750 million for the new supercomputer to be sited in Edinburgh which will give scientists in the UK access to computing power found in only a few other countries. The University of Edinburgh will be home to the new national supercomputer which it is said will strengthen the UK's position 'as an AI-maker and research power'. The supercomputer will work along with the AI Research Resource which is due to become operational soon (its funding was also paused last year). The University of Edinburgh has already built a £31 million wing of the Advanced Computing Facility to house the supercomputer with funding from the City Region Deal which is funded with contributions from both The UK and Scottish governments. The AI Research Resource is already being used to research vaccines for Alzheimer's and treatments for cancer by simulating how drugs work in side the body, 'testing' millions of potential drugs virtually. The supercomputer will allow scientists the power they require for research which could make transformational change, and in the field of medicine it will speed up the creation of new drugs. UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation, and Technology, Peter Kyle said: 'From the shipyards of the Clyde to developments in steam engine technology, Scottish trailblazers were central to the industrial revolution – so the next great industrial leap through AI and technology should be no different. 'Basing the UK's most powerful supercomputer in Edinburgh, Scotland will now be a major player in driving forward the next breakthroughs that put our Plan for Change into action.' Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves said: 'We are investing in Scotland's renewal, so working people are better off. 'Strong investment in our science and technology sector is part of our Plan for Change to kickstart economic growth, and as the home of the UK's largest supercomputer, Scotland will be an integral part of that journey.' Rt Hon Ian Murray at Dover House London Secretary of State for Scotland, Ian Murray, said: 'This is a landmark moment and will place Scotland at the forefront of the UK's technological revolution. The £750 million investment in Edinburgh's new supercomputer places Scotland at the cutting edge of computing power globally. 'This will see Scotland playing a leading role in creating breakthroughs that have a global benefit – such as new medicines, health advances, and climate change solutions. This is the Plan for Change – delivering real opportunities and economic growth for communities across Scotland.' Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, Professor Sir Peter Mathieson said: 'This significant investment will have a profoundly positive impact on the UK's global standing, and we welcome the vast opportunities it will create for research and innovation. 'Building on the University of Edinburgh's expertise and experience over decades, this powerful supercomputer will drive economic growth by supporting advancements in medicine, bolstering emerging industries and public services, and unlocking the full potential of AI. We look forward to working alongside the UK government and other partners to deliver this critical national resource.' Edinburgh Central MSP, Angus Robertson has been appealing to his Labour colleagues who represent Edinburgh constituencies since last October when he wrote to all of them, and to Peter Kyle, explaining that without such a supercomputer it would be impossible for the UK to be a 'science superpower'. He also said: 'The Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal is well on the way to establishing Edinburgh as the data capital of Europe along with the creation of 21,000 jobs.' Correctly predicting the announcement in the Spending Review Mr Robertson said on X it would be a welcome U-turn. One of the first things the UK Labour government did was cutting the Exascale computer at Edinburgh University worth nearly £1 billion. They are now reportedly considering a welcome u-turn. #Edinburgh #DataCapital#Supercomputer #AI#Exascale — Angus Robertson (@AngusRobertson) June 10, 2025 Like this: Like Related
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Daily Mail
Scientist reveals exactly how long it would take for humans to go EXTINCT if we stopped having babies
It is a terrifying prospect right out of a dystopian science fiction movie. But a scientist has now revealed exactly how long it would take for humanity to go extinct if we stopped having babies. Since very few people live beyond a century, you might think that humanity would take around 100 years to vanish. However, according to Professor Michael Little, an anthropologist at Birmingham University, we would probably disappear even faster. That's because there would eventually not be enough young people of working age to keep civilisation functioning. Writing in The Conversation, Professor Little explained: 'As an anthropology professor who has spent his career studying human behavior, biology and cultures, I readily admit that this would not be a pretty picture. 'It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive. 'Eventually, civilization would crumble.' If all of humanity suddenly lost the ability to have children, the world would not end overnight. Instead, the world's population would gradually shrink as the older generations die and fail to be replaced by the next. If there were enough food and supplies to go around, the world's population would simply get older until everyone currently on Earth died of old age. The countries that would show the most rapid declines would be those with already ageing populations such as Japan and South Korea. Meanwhile, countries with younger populations such as Niger, where the median age is just 14.5, would remain well-populated for longer. However, much like in the science fiction classic Children of Men, Earth's extinction would not follow such a smooth trajectory into oblivion. Professor Little says: 'Eventually there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. 'Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. 'Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed.' This societal collapse would likely lead to Earth's depopulation well before most people live out their natural lifespans. Luckily, Professor Little says that an abrupt halt in births is 'highly unlikely unless there is a global catastrophe'. One possible scenario that could lead to such a disaster is the spread of a highly contagious disease which causes widespread infertility. Studies suggest there are only a small number of viruses which have an impact on male fertility, including deadly strains such as Zika virus and HIV. But none of these cause infertility in 100 per cent of cases and many only have mild impacts on fertility-related issues such as reduced sperm count. This means that a virus which wipes out the world's ability to reproduce thankfully remains a matter for science fiction. However, the possibility of facing a rapidly ageing population due to a declining birth rate is a far more pressing concern. The world's population has boomed in the last 100 years, expanding from just 2.1 billion in 1930 to 8.09 billion today. Current estimates suggest that humanity will continue to expand until the mid-2080s, reaching a peak of 10 billion. But as humanity reaches its peak size, the number of babies being born each year is already beginning to fall. In some cases, fertility rates have now fallen below the 'replacement rate' of 2.1 children per woman needed to maintain a stable population. Combined with growing life expectancy, this means the average age of many countries has begun to increase. Billionaire Elon Musk - who has 14 children with four women - has for years warned about population collapse caused by a 'baby bust' in America and the West. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics found that the fertility rate fell to just 1.44 children per woman in 2024 down from the 'Baby Boom' of 2.47 children per woman in 1946. This is leading to a rapid increase in the average age, reaching 40.7 years in 2022 from 39.6 years in 2011. England and Wales only recorded 591,072 live births in 2023, the lowest number since 1977. This has brought the UK's fertility rate below the 'replacement rate' - the number of babies per woman needed to maintain a stable population Other countries are facing an even greater birth rate crisis, sparking serious concerns for economic growth. China, which artificially dropped its birth rate through the 'one child policy', has a fertility rate of just 1.18 children per women. This has led many to worry about how a dwindling working-age population will be able to care for a growing number of elderly people. While falling birth rates alone aren't likely to destroy humanity, Professor Little cautions that humans should be wary. Professor Little says: 'Our species, Homo Sapiens, has been around for at least 200,000 years. That's a long time, but like all animals on Earth we are at risk of becoming extinct.' He points to the example of the Neanderthals, a close relative of Homo sapiens, which lasted over 350,000 years before gradually declining and becoming extinct. Professor Little added: 'Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. 'This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals.' So what is behind the West's baby bust? Women worldwide, on average, are having fewer children now than previous generations. The trend, down to increased access to education and contraception, more women taking up jobs and changing attitudes towards having children, is expected to see dozens of countries' population shrink by 2100. Dr Jennifer Sciubba, author of 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World, told MailOnline that people are choosing to have smaller families and the change 'is permanent'. 'So it's wise to focus on working within this new reality rather than trying to change it,' she said. Sex education and contraception A rise in education and access to contraception is one reason behind the drop off in the global fertility rate. Education around pregnancy and contraception has increased, with sex education classes beginning in the US in the 1970s and becoming compulsory in the UK in the 1990s. 'There is an old adage that 'education is the best contraception' and I think that is relevant' for explaining the decline in birth rates, said Professor Allan Pacey, an andrologist at the University of Sheffield and former chair of the British Fertility Society. Elina Pradhan, a senior health specialist at the World Bank, suggests that more educated women choose to have fewer children due to concerns about earning less when taking time off before and after giving birth. In the UK, three in 10 mothers and one in 20 fathers report having to cut back on their working hours due to childcare, according to ONS data. They may also have more exposure to different ideas on family sizes through school and connections they make during their education, encouraging them to think more critically about the number of children they want, she said. And more educated women may know more about prenatal care and child health and may have more access to healthcare, Ms Pradhan added. Professor Jonathan Portes, an economist at King's College London, said that women's greater control over their own fertility means 'households, and women in particular, both want fewer children and are able to do so'. More women entering the workplace More women are in the workplace now than they were 50 years ago — 72 vs 52 per cent — which has contributed to the global fertility rate halving over the same time period. Professor Portes also noted that the drop-off in the birth rate may also be down to the structure of labour and housing markets, expensive childcare and gender roles making it difficult for many women to combine career aspirations with having a family. The UK Government has 'implemented the most anti-family policies of any Government in living memory' by cutting services that support families, along with benefit cuts that 'deliberately punish low-income families with children', he added. As more women have entered the workplace, the age they are starting a family has been pushed back. Data from the ONS shows that the most common age for a women who were born in 1949 to give birth was 22. But women born in 1975, were most likely to have children when they were 31-years-old. In another sign that late motherhood is on the rise, half of women born in 1990, the most recent cohort to reach 30-years-old, remained childless at 30 — the highest rate recorded. Women repeatedly point to work-related reasons for putting off having children, with surveys finding that most women want to make their way further up the career ladder before conceiving. However, the move could be leading to women having fewer children than they planned. In the 1990s, just 6,700 cycles of IVF — a technique to help people with fertility problems to have a baby — took place in the UK annually. But this skyrocketed to more than 69,000 by 2019, suggesting more women are struggling to conceive naturally. Declining sperm counts Reproductive experts have also raised the alarm that biological factors, such as falling sperm counts and changes to sexual development, could 'threaten human survival'. Dr Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, authored a ground-breaking 2017 study that revealed that global sperm counts have dropped by more than half over the past four decades. She warned that 'everywhere chemicals', such as phthalates found in toiletries, food packaging and children's toys, are to blame. The chemicals cause hormonal imbalance which can trigger 'reproductive havoc', she said. Factors including smoking tobacco and marijuana and rising obesity rates may also play a role, Dr Swan said. Studies have also pointed to air pollution for dropping fertility rates, suggesting it triggers inflammation which can damage egg and sperm production. However, Professor Pacey, a sperm quality and fertility expert, said: 'I really don't think that any changes in sperm quality are responsible for the decline in birth rates. 'In fact, I do not believe the current evidence that sperm quality has declined.' He said: 'I think a much bigger issue for falling birth rates is the fact that: (a) people are choosing to have fewer children; and (b) they are waiting until they are older to have them.' Fears about bringing children into the world Choosing not to have children is cited by some scientists as the best thing a person can do for the planet, compared to cutting energy use, travel and making food choices based on their carbon footprint. Scientists at Oregon State University calculated that the each child adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the 'carbon legacy' of a woman. Each metric ton is equivalent to driving around the world's circumference. Experts say the data is discouraging the climate conscious from having babies, while others are opting-out of children due to fears around the world they will grow up in. Dr Britt Wray, a human and planetary health fellow at Stanford University, said the drop-off in fertility rates was due to a 'fear of a degraded future due to climate change'. She was one of the authors behind a Lancet study of 10,000 volunteers, which revealed four in ten young people fear bringing children into the world because of climate concerns.
