Talk:Sylvain Lesné

She?

"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)

"She" is correct. Dr. Ashe is a woman. 69.141.228.31 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I added a semi colon to better distinguish between him and her, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Amyloid beta star 56

@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)

PS so far I have only started Amyloid beta star 56, which I'm not even sure is how we would name the article or article section, and where we would place that content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this not belong in Amyloid? Graham Beards (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Graham, I just found this ... scroll far enough down to read Ashe's response in the comments ... I think you should be able to sort if from there ? Alzforum response from Ashe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

PS it is interesting that she refers to him as a former colleague, but I am not going to use an alzforum post to add such content to the article. Also, a number of the associated researchers have responded on that alzforum thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Graham Beards I can't decipher how we decide what goes at amyloid from what goes at amyloid beta. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Alerted WT:MED here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Also Abeta56. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 24 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)

That is precisely the basis of my curiosity on the delay in reporting from the reputable US outlets, and my urge for caution in getting too far ahead on this breaking story. Is the Science article overhyping the significance of this one finding, because of the related facts: a) why didn't Ashe see this, b) why the NIH continued to fund Lesné after the whistleblower report, c) the other issues occurring in Alzheimer's drug research, and d) how much of the current drug research is really about *56 ? I'd like to know a lot more about how crucial this one protein is to the big picture, aside from what may turn out to be the obvious and typical waste of US taxpayer money coming from the NIH. For example, The Daily Kos was so hyperbolic that I hope we won't see edits extending into that territory until we have better sources and more coverage (independent from what Piller is reporting). And it looks to me like, so far, the UK outlets are basically mimicking Piller. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And to that aspect, this is an important nuance :). Thanks for that, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia I will try to answer some of your questions, once I have time later this day. You might wish to read this tweet-thread in the meanwhile. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, TrangaBellam; yes, good thread, that re-iterates eloquently what others were saying, and shows why I advocated that we not get too far ahead on this. The hyperbole is apparent, as are the real consequences to some individuals and institutions). I suspect once the major US media outlets kick in and someone does a serious investigation of the investigation, we'll have sources we can use to put it all in better context. For now, I think we've stayed on the straight and narrow, so as not end up with content that doesn't stand the test of time? But still need to know where to add star 56 in what article ... thanks for the help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:00, 25 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)

WP:fr

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)

I am French, I contributed to fr:Hypothèse amyloïde but I saw no coverage on the major French media so far. And nothing on wp:fr except a couple of discussions. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, it seems to be mostly in blogs and the like ... happy to know someone is on it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Lewisiscrazy are you able to tell me where the 1974 birth date is coming from in the French article (now created as a translation from here)? It seems to be uncited there, but my French is minimal (I can read it to the extent it is a romance language and I am fluent in Spanish). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I can’t tell, but maybe User: Archibald Tuttle can. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thx; I've been roughly following the talk discussion at the Fr Wiki [1] and so far we seem to be on the same page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Lewisiscrazy isn't this a Wiki (not a reliable source)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Here https://www.idref.fr/069067929 —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thx, will add next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We also have this official looking thingie, which I've never encountered before: VIAF 208843339 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Le Monde

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)

I can't see the whole article (paywall); is there anything we don't have (that is, any new news)? Curious we still have nothing from major US outlets. Thanks, Lewisiscrazy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I sent it to you by email. It is mostly about the simufilam story. Regarding Ab*56 they quote researchers who say that nobody could ever reproduce the 2006 results anyway ; and that the amyloid hypothesis remains solid. --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 18:29, 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	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

1. Is the Google translation of the Le Monde article title correct (Research on Alzheimer's disease: suspicions of scientific misconduct)?
2. Is it correct that Le Monde is stating that he was a post-doctoral fellow at U of M at the time of the 2006 paper? Piller (Science) says: Selkoe recalls Ashe talking about her "brilliant postdoctoral fellow" who devised it, but does not specify a date.
3. What, where, who is Cyceron?
4. Piller (Science) reports that Vivien "broke off all contact with Lesné", and now we have him speaking to Le Monde, also saying he "decided to stop all scientific and personal relations a long time ago". This seems relevant to add, now that we have another independent source: is the translation above correct?
5. Is this link correct for the institute?
6. Is the Checler bit translated correctly? I would like to use it because it explains why his work was suspect earlier.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

1, 2 : yes

3 : cyceron is a research platform/unit https://www.unicaen.fr/laboratoire/ums-3408-cyceron/

4,5,6 : yes. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Lewis; I will work on the new text (after I eat). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Stopping there for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Doctoral thesis

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)

@SandyGeorgia: I think it's relevant for academics as it shows what they spent 3 years of their life working on, so I tend to add it to the "education" section if I can find it. PamD 15:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Whereas I hesitate to add anything like that not covered by secondary sources, as UNDUE. I have never come across a policy- or guideline-based discussion on this, so more feedback could help. The only primary source I have added to the article is a mention of/link to the explicit Nature study, as it is so clearly the subject of secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I moved it to External links; we already know he spent years of his life working on it, by the fact that he has a PhD; I'm uncomfortable with primary sources in articles that aren't discussed in secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it is relevant and appropriate in the "education" section: it's just one stage on from saying what subject someone did in their BSc and MSc, the thesis topic is the subject of their PhD studies. But I don't have the energy tonight to argue (I feel a mild case of "Ownership" here) though would be delighted if anyone else stepped in with an opinion (especially if they agreed with me, of course). PamD 19:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

But "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. PamD 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

An external link seems like a good idea, unless there's some independent coverage to lend weight. Not a biggie. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I already added it back; we need more feedback. I can't recall ever seeing this kind of weight given to a doctoral thesis; could be my memory, though, and I'd sure like this to be based on some P&G guidance, rather than personal preference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And "External links" is no place for a link to a catalogue record. If there was a "Selected publications" section, it could go there. I'd be much happier if you would self-revert and put the thesis title back where it was. (Or, does anyone know of a resource for online access to full-text French doctoral theses, the way there is to many UK and US ones?) PamD 19:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Will do, with regret, as adding primary sources never leads good places in content (I have been unable to find a link to it anywhere ... Have been looking as it apparently is the source for his birthdate). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @SandyGeorgia:. I've found a record for Lesne's thesis at theses.fr, which doesn't have full text but does have an abstract (no date of birth!). I got the impression, en route to finding that site, that it had full text of later theses (2005 onwards or thereabouts), but this one was too early. PamD 20:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That's OK; in the meantime, we got his birthdate covered anyway, so that's good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Protein redundancy

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)

Hi. Ab*56 is fully defined (as an amyloid protein oligomer) in the previous sentence, so in my opinion we don’t need to help the reader further here. That’s what I meant but I am fully open to suggestions, feel free to proceed. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

We have it fully defined down here, but not in the lead. Could we work that back in to the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to. —Lewisiscrazy (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good to me (not a neuroscientist). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Slow and steady wins the race

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)

It was covered quite thoroughly on the main UK national radio news, BBC Radio R's "Today", yesterday morning, 23rd (oh, or possibly 22nd - unreliable memory!). There was an Alzheimer's expert commenting, but I can't remember who it was - possibly the same Sara Imarisio from Alz Soc. PamD 15:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It was also well covered in the. Science Podcast (see External links), but I'm still intrigued about the delayed hard-print coverage in the US, eg NYT, WaPo, Los Angeles Times, and the like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Category change

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)

No response, and 20 mins is too long to leave a BLP issue in place; I have reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Impact on research

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)

Fraud, image manipulation

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)

And ? This talk page is for discussing changes and improvements to the article; what are you suggesting be changed in the article, and based on what source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding lead citation

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)

And now converted to Harvnbs to avoid citation overkill. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Corrections to August 10 edits

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)

SandyGeorgia, the 'webforum' you have criticized is not actually a webforum, it just includes 'forum' in its name. The source is a charity dedicated to publishing news on Alzheimer. The link contains an article with the large title 'News' and the landing page contains a news stream. I acknowledge that the source was already present however, I did not see it. Rara929 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Rara929 thanks for visiting the talk page! What is relevant about the Alzheimer's Forum is that it is a primary source. It is not peer reviewed, and does not have an independent third-party publisher. Hence, we must use it cautiously (even more so for a |biography of a living person). Before your edits, I had only used it as a backup source to what Ashe had stated and to supply detail on one other instance, only because secondary sources referred to the forum comments. We can't do original research using primary sources, and shouldn't use a cite like that to source content (in this case, we don't need to anyway, as third-party, independent secondary sources already cover the content where you add the web forum). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

PS, please read this section carefully so you can avoid using sources incorectly; I have not "criticized" the Alzheimer's Forum (there's nothing wrong with the Forum, only how we use it), rather explained to you Wikipedia's policies and guidelines about sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"Retracted"?

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)

No, I don't believe it is .... I've already corrected four errors in recent edits, but am iPad typing from hotspot in car, so can't catch up with all of them. My understanding is that they intend to retract it, but Nature has not yet stated what they will do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. We should be careful not to say that it's actually retracted. But it certainly seems as close to being retracted as something can be without actually being so. — The Anome (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Now retracted, and article updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox use

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)

1. You added an infobox here without discussion.
2. I deleted it here as part of four corrections, including in edit summary: "4) remove MOS:INFOBOXUSE which adds nothing useful".
3. Without prior discussion, the second time, you reinstated it here with the edit summary "restoring infobox: please take this to talkm and actually read WP:INFOBOXUSE, which says use is to be determined by discussion, which that certainly wasn't - please don't cite policy if you aren't going to abide by it".
   1. MOS:INFOBOX is not policy (it's guideline)
   2. See WP:ONUS (which is policy): " Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. ... The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
   3. See WP:BRD (which is neither policy nor guideline, but is just good practice)

So, while I appreciate the acknowledgement that the infobox was added without discussion, I note it was added again without consensus or establishing its usefulness.

More relevant, it appears that your contention is that the infobox adds something useful to the article. That usefulness seems to be that "Lesné's age and seniority relative to his peers is highly salient". Could you provide a source to assure this is not original research or UNDUE? It's been well over a year since I read every source written on the subject and topic, but I don't recall coming across such information. Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)