Doctored narratives \ Fraud, trust, and the ethics of exposing misconduct
- Liesbeth Aerts
- Jun 27
- 5 min read
How can we balance the exposure of misconduct with the preservation of public trust? It’s not a new question, but it’s one I’ve been reflecting on more intensely in recent months as a controversy erupted in a field I’ve followed for years: Alzheimer’s research. The spark was Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s, a book published earlier this year by investigative journalist Charles Piller.
I first got pulled into the debate after seeing someone on social media post their blunt takeaway: “The Alzheimer’s field is in a total mess.” I pushed back, and in doing so found myself drawn deeper into the discussion. I checked in with Alzheimer’s researchers I know personally, including my former PhD supervisor, and followed the conversation on Alzforum, a key online hub for the field.
What I found as I read further through public statements, internal emails between researchers, and correspondence with journal editors, exposed deep fault lines—between journalism and science, between accountability and sensationalism, and between transparency and public confidence.
THE CASE
Drawing on years of investigative reporting, Piller’s Doctored claims to reveal a widespread pattern of fraud, negligence, and regulatory failure that he argues has misdirected decades of Alzheimer’s research. Central to the book is the high-profile case of Sylvain Lesné, a University of Minnesota researcher accused of manipulating data in a landmark 2006 Nature paper on a toxic form of amyloid beta (Aβ56). According to Piller, this fraudulent work reinforced the so-called amyloid hypothesis, contributing to the misallocation of billions in research funding and the development of ineffective drugs.
