It is a big issue if publications in science in high reputation journals have managed to pass a rather lengthy and thorough peer review process and still contain evidence based on fraudulent data. The worst case scenario that based on this wrong evidence tests of useless drugs are performed on patients in hope of an honest concern for their health. In fact the financial rewards and even academic rewards have been achieved only through the successful publication of a bias introduced into the data and/or analyses of the data. The fraudulent researcher became subsequently Director of the institute of agingwhoch is part of the American National Institute of Health (NIH) and an academic reference in health sciences far beyond the USA. It is the merit of Charles Piller and his team to persist in challenging the treatment recommendations which were concerning Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases. The checks and balances in the academic research have failed and a serious reconsideration of the procedures should follow, not just business as usual. The reputation of scientific research is at stake beyond the natural sciences and medicine, although the normal way of proceeding is just to qualify such events as singularity and specific to a single discipline. Aging is also not just treated by one single discipline. Hence, there is a need to review the review process and publication practices. The Boeing airplane control failures were also indicating that reviews of technology are subject to high risks. Independent checks and control are hard to ensure in advanced subject matters, but sufficient time and resources have to be devoted to the process. (Image Repair Lab Deutsches Technikmuseum DTM2024).
