Skip to main content
Pics and it didn’t happen
Fraud in Alzheimer’s research raises difficult questions about the current state of science, write ROX MIDDLETON, LIAM SHAW and MIRIAM GAUNTLETT
GROUP SUPREMACY: Alois Alzheimer (standing third from right) with his research group at the Nervenklinik in Munich 1909-1910 [Public domainc/CC]

IN MOST cases of peer review, scientists review a paper for free while the publisher makes a huge profit margin. Two of the world’s biggest academic publishers are Springer Nature and Elsevier: their recent profit margins range from 28 to 38 per cent. The fees charged by these publishers are generally paid for by research grants; in Britain, that is mostly public money. The status quo of science is worth a lot of money — for some. 

However, not everything that is peer-reviewed is valid. A recent book published this month, Charles Piller’s Doctored, covers the story of fraud in research on Alzheimer’s disease — all of which had been peer-reviewed.

One of the leading theories in the late 20th century about Alzheimer’s was that the accumulation of amyloid proteins was to blame. Amyloids, named after their resemblance to starch molecules, clump together into tangles of gunk in the brain.

The 95th Anniversary Appeal
Support the Morning Star
You have reached the free limit.
Subscribe to continue reading.
Similar stories
Planet earth by Kevin M Gill/CC
Full Marx / 18 July 2026
18 July 2026

Nature as well as society works dialectically, asserts the Marx Memorial Library and Workers’ School

[Pic: Robina Weermeijer / Creative Commons]
Healthcare / 15 July 2026
15 July 2026
men
Books / 26 February 2026
26 February 2026

SUE TURNER is fascinated by a book that researches who the largely immigrant workforce were that built the Empire State

Atom
Science and Society / 19 November 2025
19 November 2025

Neutrinos are so abundant that 400 trillion pass through your body every second. ROX MIDDLETON, LIAM SHAW and MIRIAM GAUNTLETT explain how scientists are seeking to know more about them