Open letter to Donald Kennedy, Science Editor-in-Chief: AAAS, Science, Alzheimer’s disease and academic dishonesty

Originally published at Science's SAGE KE on June 16, 2003. Unpublished on 7 August 2003 together with another now re-published letter entitled "Amyloid beta road show, or has the lure of profits corrupted Alzheimer's research?"

To print Acrobat .PDF imprint of the original open letter please click here (Acrobat reader required). To view other correspondence items by A.Koudinov please visit the author Internet Office.

Current readership: 1054

 


cc: WAME, COPE, Nobel Foundation, Alzheimer’s neuroscientists worldwide
  

"We shall be told:
…Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE"
Dear Dr. Kennedy,

I was very encouraged by your earlier statements at the post of Science Editor-in-Chief [ 1 ], and your prompt handling of the non-disclosure of the major Alzheimer’s field competing financial interest in a review article by Hardy and Selkoe a year ago [ 2, 3, 4 ]. This article represented a unipolar view of the amyloid beta protein as an Alzheimer’s disease culprit and failed to provide a fair discussion of amyloid beta (Ab) as essential brain chemical [ 5, 6 ].

Your transfer of the non-disclosure responsibility from Dr. Selkoe to Science (thus voluntary accepting the Science editorial misconduct), however, seem not justified [ 3, 7 ], especially, because Dr. Selkoe has been hiding his corporate insider status for a decade, a term well qualifying his conduct to be called a pattern of academic dishonesty behavior [ 8, 9 ].

I therefore was puzzled why you published shortly thereafter authored by D. Selkoe an other article that served to modify amyloid cascade hypothesis (read dogma) in favor of amyloid oligomers rather then plaques [ 10, 11 ]. It was a viewpoint article in a Science theme issue “The dynamic synapse” distributed free of charge at the 32nd Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting, November 2-7, 2002, in Orlando, Florida, a major forum for neuroscientists. This article (similarly to earlier article [ 2 ]) had no discussion of amyloid beta as good molecule. It also failed to provide honest disclosure of the competing financial interest by Selkoe [ 10, 11 ] and simplified the case by calling Dr. Selkoe “a consultant to Elan Pharmaceuticals, plc.” in the last reference (your response on my inquiry is provided below [ 11 ]).

On April 22, 2003 I brought your attention to another case of the violation of the AAAS/Science disclosure policy in another article on Alzheimer’s disease [ 12, 13 ]. One of the senior authors of April 18, 2003 article on amyloid oligomers, Dr. Carl Cotman failed to disclose that he is a co-founder, scientific director and consultant of the Cortex Pharmaceuticals, a company that has Alzheimer’s disease as one of its’ research areas [ 14, 15 ]. This time you did not reply on my non-disclosure alert [ 16 ] and yet failed to publish a correction to fix this instance of the AAAS Science policy breach.

Most lately, on June 13, 2003 Science published a presidential address by Floyd Bloom, AAAS board chairman, your immediate predecessor at the post of Science Editor-in-Chief [ 17, 18 ], and the sole Editor-in-Chief for Elsevier's Brain Research journal series. This contribution includes two-paragraph section on “Complex genetic diseases of the brain“. Defining “new strategies for the treatment of Alzheimer's” Dr. Bloom particularly is mentioning “vaccines for absorbing the bad fragments of APP”(amyloid b precursor protein) and “enzymes to block the abnormal proteolysis” [of APP yielding Ab]. The related bibliography includes citations of the above mentioned article by D. Selkoe in the Science theme issue [ 10 ], and the article by vaccine developer Dr. Schenk of Selkoe’s Elan Pharmaceuticals, plc [ 19 ]. What this Science publication does not mention is Dr. Bloom competing financial interest.

Such interest, however, is illuminated in a news reports associated with the April 15, 2003 article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA (PNAS) having Floyd Bloom as senior author, and Neurome, Elan and Scripps Institute as organizations where this research was performed [ 20, 21 ].

Quoting Floyd Bloom at the Press Release of Neurome [ 21 ]: "Using our newly developed tools for visualizing brain structures, we were able to completely reconstruct the brains of the mice that model human Alzheimer's disease," said Floyd E. Bloom, M.D., Founding CEO and Chairman of the Board of Neurome and Chairman of the Department of Neuropharmacology at The Scripps Research Institute.  "In fact, embedded in the brain reconstruction, we generated a 3D reconstruction of the deadly deposits of amyloid, showing for the first time, how the amyloid deposits precisely correspond with key memory circuits -- the same key memory circuits that are affected early in human Alzheimer's disease"… "Neurome's findings will be greeted by the Alzheimer's community as a major scientific contribution," commented Dr. Paul Greengard, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate, Astor Professor and Head of the Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience at The Rockefeller University in New York, and a member of Neurome's Scientific Advisory Board.

The Neurome web site [ 22 ] discloses further details of Dr. Bloom competing financial interest coming out of Neurome and Selkoe’s Elan collaboration: “The research partnership with Elan has an initial term of 3 years and may generate up to $4 million in service revenue for Neurome, together with shared ownership of the diagnostic and therapeutic applications of the genes, circuits and mechanisms identified in the research. The partnership will utilize Neurome's technologies to analyze a mouse model of Alzheimer's Disease with the goal of identifying and exploiting molecules and pathways relevant to diagnosis and treatment of the disease. The partnership will analyze Elan's proprietary mouse model of amyloid deposition in an attempt to answer a variety of scientific questions regarding amyloid deposition.”

Neurome-Elan joint venture is also disclosed in the Signals magazine article “Deconstructing Elan” [ 23 ].

It is important to note that PNAS article does not have competing interest declaration, as it is required by the uniform requirements to the manuscripts submitted to the biomedical journals [ 24 ], and that it was “contributed by Floyd E. Bloom”. PNAS information for authors [ 25 ] explains that the later record indicates the manuscript submission to PNAS through Track III. It further says: “Track III: An Academy member [PNAS is a National Academy of Sciences USA publication] may submit his or her own manuscripts for publication. Members' submissions must be accompanied by the name of knowledgeable colleague(s) who reviewed the paper, along with the review(s)”. This should be of special interest for Nicholas Cozzarelli, PNAS Editor-in-Chief, to editor of Neuron, a major neuroscience journal that published a study of Elan vaccine trial with apparently false competing interest declaration [ 26, 27 ], to Nature editor Philip Campbell whose editorial team did not find grounds to provide a competing interest disclosure correction for the last year Alzheimer’s ‘smoking gun’ article by Selkoe [ 28, 29, 30, 31 ], to the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) that yet neglected to punish D. Selkoe academic dishonesty in serving Alzheimer’s Potamkin Prize (awarded in 2001 to Dale Schenk of Elan Pharmaceuticals) chairperson without acknowledging his competing interest as Elan director [ 32, 33 ], to the Public Citizen Health Research Group that yet failed to respond on my earlier correspondence [ 32 ], and to the BMJ reporting on editorial misconduct [ 34 ].
 

A message to remember: 

“We shall be told: …Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood. 

And the simple step of a simple courageous man is not to partake in falsehood, not to support false actions! Let THAT enter the world, let it even reign in the world - but not with my help.”


 Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970 (Ref. 37)


"...The usual response of higher authorities to allegations of misconduct is to refuse to hold an inquiry or to claim that a secret inquiry disproved the allegations. When action is taken, it is often inadequate...

...There should be tough sanctions against those who help to conceal dishonesty by others..."


 The code of silence (Ref. 38)


"We will not be publishing your dEbate submission, as we feel that it simply reiterates previous comments you have  made about Dr. Selkoe."


 Science editorial response (Ref. 39)

The major concern of this letter remains my wonder what is wrong with Science and AAAS with regard to Alzheimer’s disease research. Are the above cases a record of the major journal bias in favor of amyloid dogma ? If so is this bias inspired and protected by the AAAS leadership? I do think so and feel that many neuroscientists share my evidence-based [ 35 ] view.

Your earlier editorials as Science Editor-in-Chief [ 1 ] seem supporting the principals of the “independence, governance, and trust” [ 36 ], and that “unsettling the establishment… is an editor's duty” [ 34 ].

Its’ a shame that the facts described here welcome an unfortunate alternative view.

Sincerely,

Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD
neuroscientist and editor
http://anzwers.org/free/neurology
http://neurobiologyoflipids.org
 

Competing interests: I do not have any competing financial interest. I aim free information dissemination and an unbiased development of Alzheimer's neuroscience. I observe the Society for Neuroscience Guidelines for Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication. I am a founding, managing and publishing editor of the Neurobiology of Lipids, an unpaid position. Neurobiology of Lipids (ISSN 1683-5506) has no affiliation with any professional association, publisher, industry member, commercial enterprise, public or government organization. The viewpoint presented in this letter is my personal view.
 

[ Inform a colleague ] [ Ask Alexei Koudinov how to cite this letter ]

References:

1.  Kennedy D. More questions about research misconduct. Science . 297, 13 (5 July 2002) [ PubMed ]; Kennedy D.  Not wicked, perhaps, but tacky. Science. 297, 1237 (23 Aug 2002) [ PubMed ] [ Correspondence ]; Kennedy D. To publish or not to publish. Science. 295, 1793 (8 March 2002) [ PubMed ]; Kennedy D. Coming aboard. Science. 288, 1745 (9 June 2000) [ PubMed ]; Kennedy D. Coming Aboard II: Discourse. Science. 289, 53 (7 July 2000) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

2. Hardy J, Selkoe DJ. The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease: progress and problems on the road to therapeutics. Science.297, 353-6 (19 July 2002) [ PubMed ] [ Back2Text ].

3. Corrections and clarifications. Science. 297, 2209 (27 Sept 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

4. Crowley D. Elan Alzheimer's expert in pre-slump share sale. The Sunday Business Post. (18 Aug 2002) [ FullText ];  Koudinov AR. Ethical conundrums: an Alzheimer's case. BMJ. (12 Sept 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

5. Koudinov AR. Amyloid was never clearly implicated in Alzheimer's disease, so look at Abeta from a different angle. BMJ. (30 Nov 2002) [ FullText ]; Koudinov AR, Smith MA, Perry G, Koudinova NV. Alzheimer's disease and amyloid beta protein. Science.  (14 June 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

6. Koudinova NV, Kontush A, Berezov TT, Koudinov AR. Amyloid beta, neural lipids, cholesterol and Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Lipids. 1, 6 (2003) [ FullText ]; Kamenetz F,  et al. APP processing and synaptic function. Neuron. 37, 925-37 (2003) [ PubMed ] [ Related correspondence ] [ Back2Text ].

7. Donald Kennedy letter to Alexei Koudinov (3 Sept 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

8. Ready T. Science for Sale: A Harvard researcher stands to profit from a product he "independently" reviewed for the National Institutes of Health. The Boston Phoenix. (29 April 1999) [ FullText ]; Waldholz M, King RT, Jr. Did ties to Alzheimer's test maker sway NIH report? The Wall Street Journal. (30 Nov 1998) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

9. Administrative actions. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) web site. [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

10. Selkoe DJ. Alzheimer's disease is a synaptic failure. Science. 298, 789-91 (25 Oct 2002) [ PubMed ] [ Back2Text ].

11. Donald Kennedy correspondence with Alexei Koudinov (27-28 Oct 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

12. Kayed R, Head E, Thompson JL, McIntire TM, Milton SC, Cotman CW, Glabe CG. Common structure of soluble amyloid oligomers implies common mechanism of pathogenesis. Science. 300, 486-9 (18 April 2003) [ PubMed ] [ Back2Text ].

13. Koudinov AR. Alzheimer's amyloid beta oligomers versus lipoprotein Abeta. Science SAGE KE. (1 May 2003) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

14. Cotman, Carl W, Cortex director.Forbes magazine. [ FullText Record ] [ Back2Text ].

15. Research areas: Alzheimer's disease. Cortex Research Center. Cortex Pharmaceuticals (COR) web site. [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

16. Alexei Koudinov letter to Donald Kennedy (22 April 2003) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

17. Bloom FE.  Presidential address. Science as a way of life: perplexities of a physician-scientist. Science. 300, 1680-5 (13 June 2003) [ PubMed ]; Also see Dr. F. Bloom address coverage at AAAS web site: Healing U.S. Health Care. AAAS Board Chairman Floyd E. Bloom calls for U.S. health care reform. [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

18. Chair. Dr. Floyd E. Bloom, The Scripps Research Institute About AAAS. Board of Directors 2003-2004. AAAS web site. [ FullText ] [ AAAS Experts & Speakers Service page ] [ Back2Text ].

19. Schenk D. Amyloid-beta immunotherapy for Alzheimer's disease: the end of the beginning. Nat Rev Neurosci. 3, 824-8 (Oct 2002) [ PubMed ] [ Back2Text ].

20. Reilly JF, Games D, Rydel RE, Freedman S, Schenk D, Young WG, Morrison JH, Bloom FE. Amyloid deposition in the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex: Quantitative analysis of a transgenic mouse model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100, 4837-42 (15 Apr 2003) [ PubMed ] [ Back2Text ].

21. Neurome announces publication of ground-breaking research findings on Alzheimer's disease in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Press Release (15 April 2003)  Contact: Floyd E. Bloom, M.D. Chief Executive Officer (858) 677-0466. News and Media section. Neurome web site. [ FullText ]; Also available at: PR Newswire. (15 April 2003) [ Important note ] [ Back2Text ].

22. Neurome Collaborations. Neurome web site. [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

23. Van Brunt J. Deconstructing Elan. Signals magazine  (14 Nov 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

24. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Med Educ.  33,  66-78 (1999) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

25. Submission and Review. Instructions for Authors Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

26. Koudinov AR. Hasta la vista, amyloid cascade hypothesis, OR will academic dishonesty yield Alzheimer's cure? AAAS SAKE KE. (26 May 2003) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

27. Koudinov AR. 22 May 2003 Neuron article on Alzheimer's: 'valid research' or a 'drug company propaganda'? BMJ (31 May 2003) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

28. Walsh DM, Klyubin I, Fadeeva JV, Cullen WK, Anwyl R, Wolfe MS, Rowan MJ, Selkoe DJ. Naturally secreted oligomers of amyloid (protein potently inhibit hippocampal long-term potentiation in vivo. Nature. 416, 535-9 (2002) [ PubMed ] [ Back2Text ].

29. Koudinov AR, Koudinova NV. Amyloid hypothesis, synaptic function, and Alzheimer’s disease, or Beware: the dogma is revitalized. BMJ. (15 May 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

30. Whitfield J. Smoking gun found for Alzheimer's: Small clumps of misfolded protein wreak havoc. Nature News. (4 April 2002) [ FullText ] [ Important note ] [ Back2Text ].

31. Koudinov AR correspondence with Nature (11 April - 2 Dec 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

32. Koudinov AR. Open letter to Public Citizen's Health Research Group on Alzheimer's disease research. BMJ online. (27 Feb 2003) [ FullText ]; SAGE KE (21 Feb 2003) [ FullText ]; Rosenberg RN. The Potamkin Prize for Pick's, Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders. AAN web site. [ Original .DOC file ] [ HTML cached version ] [ Back2Text ].

33. Koudinov AR correspondence with American Academy of Neurology (Nov 2002 - March 2003) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

34. Smith R. Editorial. Editorial misconduct: Medical editors need effective self regulation BMJ (7 June 2003) 326, 1224-5 [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

35. Davis RM, Mullner M. Editorial independence at medical journals owned by professional associations: a survey of editors. Sci Eng Ethics. 8, 513-28 (Oct 2002) [ PubMed ] [ Back2Text ].

36. Davies HT, Rennie D. Independence, governance, and trust: redefining the relationship between JAMA and the AMA. JAMA 281, 2344-6 (1999) [ PubMed ] [ Back2Text ].

37. Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture in Literature 1970. The Nobel Prize in Literature 1970. Nobel Foundation official web site [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

38. Wilmshurst P. The code of silence. Lancet  349, 567-569 (1997) [ PubMed ]; Wilmshurst P. Institutional corruption in medicine. BMJ 325, 1232-5 (23 November 2002) [ FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

39. Science editorial rejection letter for: Koudinov A. Do not undescore the epidemics of the business, too. Science dEbate submission (Submitted 31 Jan 2003, rejected 7 Feb 2003) [ Letter FullText ] [ Rejection letter FullText ] [ Back2Text ].

40. Alexei Koudinov letter to Donald Kennedy, Science. Editor-in-Chief (28 Feb 2003) [ FullText] [ Acrobat .PDF imprint ] [ Back2Text ].
 
 

Alexei Koudinov correspondence with Donald Kennedy, Science Editor-in-Chief

---------------------------------------
Correspondence Part 6 | Back2Text
--------------------------------------------------
At 12:30 AM 4/22/2003 +0300, Alexei Koudinov wrote:

21 April 2003

Dear Dr.Kennedy,

I hope you are doing well and have memorable holidays.

Following our earlier correspondence I would like to report that I do my best to follow scientific issues in discussing Alzheimer's research. 

It is not always possible, though. As you should be aware last Friday, April 18, 2003 Science published a report on oligomers of amyloid beta protein and Alzheimer's disease. We had important issues to add to the discussion and summarized it in already submitted (via online submission system) letter to the editor, that I attach for your convinience. In this letter we discuss science only. As the argument is sound I hope Science will consider publishing it.

But I feel obliged to let you know that this Science report misses the competing interest declaration by one of the senior authors. I easily discovered it at Forbes magazine. Attached are two .PDF files with Acrobat printouts of thess documents. You can also navigate to it by clicking on the following link: 
<http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=182960>
I hope that you will take an appropriate action with regard to this competing interest matter.
 

Sincerely yours,
 

Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD

---------------------------------------
Correspondence Part 5 | Back2Text
--------------------------------------------------
At 02:37 AM 2/28/2003 +0200, Alexei Koudinov wrote:

Subject: A story

Dear Dr.Kennedy,

I was very proud of Science last week, Friday (Feb. 21, 2003) night and a greater part of Saturday (Feb. 22, 2003), as I discovered at Science online that five articles by D. Selkoe (of total seven) are red stamped with the notice "This article has been retracted". 

I further looked for articles that have words 'amyloid beta' anywhere in article text. My screening of some of them retrieved several articles that had identical retraction flag. The selectivity of retracted titles implied a clear picture. 

I thought that you not only retracted five articles by Selkoe published in 2001 and 2002, but also those articles by others that Selkoe likely reviewed. I was not sure whether just a "note of concern" would be sufficient ,or a full "retraction", but I trusted in your wisdom and the robustness of your decision. Why only 2001 and 2002? Because all stamped articles were after the sale by D.Selkoe and other Elan directors their Elan shares in February 2001, a time when D.Selkoe major conflict become apparent. 

I did believe in the above. Moreover, I further thought that following the Science example of high profile ethics the other scientific bodies will fully disclose D. Selkoe conflict as compromising their code of responsible conduct. I also thought that the space is reserved in the last issue of Science 2003 for the coverage of the above as a breakdown of the year.

On Saturday evening, though, retraction flags were gone. My first feeling was that Science is testing the system and that you just hide the retraction items scheduled to appear next Friday. Next Friday (Feb. 28, 2003) come as Science's special issue on Aging did. The miracle retractions remained hidden. 

It was not a dream, though. Was it a problem with the Science electronic publishing as noted by your editorial colleague in response on my other inquiry? It is not important as the above created a story that will share my feelings with Alzheimer's and neuroscience research community and that will ask you further questions. 

This community is hurt by D. Selkoe conflict and associated bias. I welcome you to further learn about it in my open letter to Public Citizen's Health Research Group (BMJ, Feb. 27, 2003, Ref.1).

Please note that I fully observe the Society for Neuroscience Guidelines on Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication.

Sincerely,

Alexei Koudinov

Reference:

(1) Open letter to Public Citizen's Health Research Group on Alzheimer's disease research Alexei R. Koudinov British Medical Journal, 27 Feb 2003 Available at: http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7357/226/a#29825 Current readership: 764 

---------------------------------------
Correspondence Part 4 | Back2Text
--------------------------------------------------
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1 
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:10:02 -0500 
From: "Etta Kavanagh" <ekavanag@aaas.org> 
To: <koudin@med.pfu.edu.ru> 
Subject: please advise // Re: Thank you for your response to Science 

Dear Dr. Koudinov,
 

We will not be publishing your dEbate submission, as we feel that it simply reiterates previous comments you have made about Dr. Selkoe. Thank you for your interest in SCIENCE.
 

Best regards,
 

Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
ekavanag@aaas.org
 

Department e-mail: science_letters@aaas.org

---------------------------------------
Correspondence Part 3 | Back2Text
--------------------------------------------------
At 01:29 PM 20/12/2002 +0200, Alexei Koudinov wrote:

Donald Kennedy
Editor-in-Chief
Science

20 December 2002

Dear Dr.Kennedy,

I appreciate your note and your advise. 

Your Science editorials on ethics and prompt handling of the correction note for Selkoe conflict earlier this year led me to realize that you oppose any form of ethics break, that you support the openness of science, that you see the disclosure as the only way to handle the break, and that there should be no double standards no matter who is touched when the norms are impaired. I therefore thought I must keep you informed of my correspondence (below), especially, because D.Selkoe was publishing in Science at least three times this year, and because one of these articles is now stamped as having a correction note published.

Your letter referred me to Science Instruction for Authors. The latest version of the Instructions (Vol.295, 4 Jan 2002, p.151) says that "also required for submission" is "a completed conflict-of-interest statement" and that  "Pdf available from online Information for contributors". The indicated form further informs prospective authors that "Science policy requires you to state whether you or any of your co-authors have financial or other conflicts of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of your study" (1). 

There is no statement that it is Science responsibility to provide authors with the form. Furthermore, my letter to AAN (below) does not discuss how the correction note (2) appeared in Science but just referees to the "correction note of a recent (27 Sept 2002) Science magazine issue".

On the other hand, based on the above, and in light of the correction note of Sept. 27, 2002 (2) I do see that Selkoe failed to provide full disclosure of his conflict in his another article published in Science a month later, on October 25, 2002. This happened despite of Science awareness of D.Selkoe conflict (2). 

Oct. 25 issue of Science was distributed free of charge at the Neuroscience meeting 2002 (2-7 November 2002, Orlando, Florida) thus aiming the major neuroscience auditorium. Unfortunately, the Selkoe statement (as a part of last reference of his paper Oct.25, 2002 article in Science ) that he is just "a consultant to Elan" is not accurate and could mislead the audience because he is a director for Elan and Elan shareholder (2,3). 

My question is: who is responsible for this inaccuracy and how Science will fix it ? This would be important as one would find little doubt that what Science aims (to disclose the "conflicts of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of your study", Ref.1, also see Ref.4) was not observed in Selkoe viewpoint article in Oct. 25 Science issue, despite of Science earlier publication of a correction note for an earlier article by Selkoe (2).

There is another issue that I do not agree with you. You write to me that my "extensive correspondence with journals and societies, all of which appear to be a part of a campaign to discredit Dr. Selkoe." I oppositely think that Selkoe himself is discrediting AAN, Science and other scientific bodies. I believe that my correspondence serves solely to protect the public trust in Alzheimer's disease and associated neuroscience research. This is because "an event has occurred of which it is difficult to speak and impossible to remain silent" (5).

I am confident that the story is not closed and well reserves next year presentation as Science breakdown of the year (6,7, also see Ref.4).

With best regards and best wishes for Happy Holiday season !

Sincerely,
 

Alexei Koudinov 
caring neuroscientist

References:

(1) http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/prep/conflict.pdf

(2) Corrections and clarifications. Science Vol.297, Number 5590, Issue of 27 Sept 2002, p. 2209: 
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5590/2209b

(3) Cowley D. Elan Alzheimer's expert in pre-slump share sale. Dublin, Ireland, 18 August, 2002, The Sunday Business Post:
http://www.thepost.ie/story.jsp?story=WCContent%3Bid-53695

(4) Koudinov AR. Amyloid was never clearly implicated in Alzheimer's disease, so look at Abeta from a different angle. British Medical Journal (30 November 2002): http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/316/7129/446#27397

(5) Wilmshurst P. The code of silence. Lancet 349, 567-569 (1997) ; (5) Wilmshurst P. Institutional corruption in medicine. BMJ 325, 1232-5 (23 November 2002): http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7374/1232

(6) Service RF. Breakdown of the Year: Physics Fraud Science 298, 2303 (20 December 2002)
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/btoy2002/index.shtml

(7) Kennedy D. Editorial: Breakthrough of the year. Volume 298, Number 5602, Issue of 20 Dec 2002, p. 2283: 
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/298/5602/2283

----------------------------------------------------
At 09:02 AM 11/12/2002 -0500, Donald Kennedy wrote:

Dear Dr. Koudinov:

You have been sending me copies of your extensive correspondence with journals and societies, all of which appear to be a part of a campaign to discredit Dr. Selkoe.

In this latest copy, I note the following excerpt:  "...and was publishing without acknowledging his corporate financial interest. Some of the above become publically know, as you can see in a correction note of a recent (27 Sept 2002) Science magazine issue. "  I find that misleading.  The correction makes clear that Dr. Selkoe did not fail to disclose. Because his manuscript did not come in to our system electronically he did not receive the usual disclosure form.  When it was brought to his attention he executed the form promptly and fully.

I would hope you will not continue to represent this situation inaccurately. But I should also tell you that I don't plan to keep track -- so please don't continue to send me all your correspondence on this subject.  I have other things to do with my time.  (And so, I would suggest, do you!)

Sincerely yours

Donald Kennedy

---------------------------------------
Correspondence Part 2 | Back2Text
--------------------------------------------------
At 11:33 PM 28/10/2002 +0200, Alexei Koudinov wrote:

Donald Kennedy
Editor-in-Chief
Science

28 October 2002

Dear Dr.Kennedy,

Thank you very much for your response.

My request followed what I believe is the synthesis of my ten years expertise in the field of Alzheimer's disease research, the field's need, the ethics of biomedical research, and the responsible conduct regarding scientific communication (1). 

Duplication by D. Selkoe opinion article (Science, 27 Sept 2002, p. 2209, Ref.2) some items of recent Hardy and Selkoe review article (Science, 19 July 2002, p. 353, Ref.3,4) on the same subject of amyloid dogma (although under a different title) seems unjustified and damaging the field of Alzheimer's disease. 

I will be presenting this subject in greater details at the 32nd Society for Neuroscience Annual meeting (November 3-7, 2002) and will be happy to share the presentation with your editorial colleagues should they attend our History of Neuroscience poster session (see abstract below). 

I certainly will continue to pursue my purely scientific interest, and I am happy that there are other publishing bodies that share my view (5). Please note that Ref.5 refers to a contribution that was first submitted as Science dEbate letter to comment on your editorial on ethics in science (23 Aug 2002, p. 1237, Ref.6). 
 

Sincerely,

Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD
neuroscientist and editor
http://anzwers.org/free/neurology
http://neurobiologyoflipids.org

References:

1 Society for Neuroscience. Responsible conduct regarding scientific communication. Available at: http://www.sfn.org
2 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5594/789
3 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5580/353
4 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5590/2209b
5 Koudinov AR. Ethical conundrums: an Alzheimer's case. British Medical Journal, published online 12 Sept. 2002, Available at: http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7363/0/g#25404
6 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1237

-------------------------------------------------
At 11:13 AM 28/10/2002 -0800, Don Kennedy wrote:

Dear Dr. Koudinov:

I believe that Dr. Selkoe's statement is a sufficient announcement of what some might perceive as a conflict.

Thank you for bringing the matter to our attention -- but your pursuit of this issue is beginning to look like a campaign.

Sincerely yours

Donald Kennedy
-- 
Donald Kennedy
Bing Professor of Environmental Science
Institute for International Studies
Center for Environmental Science and Policy
Stanford University,
Stanford, CA  94305-6055
Ph:  650/725-2745
Fax: 650/725-1992
em:  kennedyd@leland.stanford.edu

----------------------------------------------------
At 11:26 PM 27/10/2002 +0200, Alexei Koudinov wrote:

Dear Dr.Kennedy,

I am writing with regard to last Friday opinion article in Science magazine by Dennis Selkoe entitled "Alzheimer's disease Is a Synaptic Failure" (Oct 25,  2002; available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5594/789).

This article (despite of the lack of word AMYLOID in the title serves to push major Selkoe effort that is tackling Alzheimer's disease by lowering amyloid. The article thus likely is biased by Selkoe conflict of interest. 

That is true that this article makes an acknowledgement statement by Selkoe that he is a consultant for Elan. However, this opinion article does not include the Conflict of Interest declaration despite the fact that D. Selkoe accepted his conflict of interest that was published as a correction note (27 Sept 2002, p. 2209; available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5590/2209b ) with regard to his July 19 (p. 353) review article.

I am therefore feel obliged to bring this fact to your attention and request publication in Science the correction on October 25 opinion article by Selkoe.

I would like to provide the following facts in support of my request:

-------
First, 
-------

The Sunday Business Post article entitled "Elan Alzheimer's expert in pre-slump share sale: (18 August 2002, available at:
http://www.thepost.ie/story.jsp?story=WCContent;id-53695 ) provides evidence that Selkoe is an Elan director (where he continuously serves since 1996) and that he is an important shareholder.

"Selkoe also sold 20,000 shares for just over $1 million on February 6, 2001. Elan directors' sales, in all, came to over $43.5 million in February 2001. Selkoe had indicated that he would sell 8,303 Elan shares, worth $364,623 on December 10, 2001 but the company only has records of the smaller sale. 

...The company also said that Selkoe continues to own 163,000 shares... 

...Selkoe joined the board of Elan in 1996 following Elan's acquisition of Athena, where he had been a director and co-founder. He is a professor of neurology and neuroscience at Harvard Medical School and is also a co-director of the Centre for Neurologic Disease at the Brigham and Women's Hospital..."

-----------
Second, 
-----------

Today (Oct. 27, 2002) article in the Post further quotes the chairman of Selkoes' Elan. This article (entitled "Elan's Armen: 'We will survive') is available at: http://www.thepost.ie/story.jsp?story=WCContent;id-59174 .

and provides the proof that amyloid (the matter of Selkoe opinion article in Science) is at the same time the major commercial interest of Elan:

"...On the drugs pipeline: "Amidst all the problems we have a very impressive pipeline -- real science." The development risk was low because of the late stage of development of its two key drugs: Antegen, which treats Crohn's disease and multiple sclerosis, and its Alzheimers drug. Elan had the most advanced Alzheimers programme in the world, he said.

Armen rejected suggestions that the problems at the company were leading to an outflow of key scientists. "The people in charge of the pipelines for Alzheimers, MS, and Crohn's disease are not leaving, they have devoted their lives and careers to these products and they are not walking away now. It is their life and their passion," he said. He remains optimistic about the outlook for the success of Elan's Alzheimers drug even though it was withdrawn last January because of problems of inflammation suffered by patients. 

"The great majority of patients who showed inflammation of the brain following vaccination have now recovered," he said.

"If plaque building in the brain is responsible for Alzheimers -- as our scientists believe -- and our product removes that plaque as it does, then cognitive improvement in patients should be evidenced within a period of 12 months from initial vaccination. So by the end of the year patients who were dosed in the November-January period 2001/02 should be demonstrating cognitive improvement." "

(There are similar statement by the chairman of Selkoe's Elan in today The Sunday Times entitled "Feature: Elan chairman sees light at end of tunnel" that you can access at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-459437,00.html ).

I hope that you will find the above info compeling to justify your action. 

As an additional note I would like to invite you and your editorial colleagues to visit our History of Neuroscience presentation at the upcoming Society for Neuroscience Annual Meeting in Orlando, Fla. For your convinience the abstracts are provided below.
 

Sincerely,
 

Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD

--------------------
ABSTRACT 1
--------------------

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND AMYLOID BETA PROTEIN: DOGMA IS BAD FOR SCIENCE
(Sunday, Nov. 3-7 History of Neuroscience Session #21.11 Poster board BB-11 )

There are no doubts about the perceived importance of amyloid beta protein (Abeta) for the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's and other related neurodegenerative disorders. The search of PubMed for 'amyloid beta and Alzheimer's disease' performed on 24 April 2002 retrieved 5835 articles. In addition to this open science measure there are 66 US patents that have words 'amyloid and beta' in their titles [1]. The dogmatic viewpoint is that Abeta is a bad neurotoxic molecule that has to be eliminated from the brain tissue [2-6]. The inability of the toxic concept to provide the disease cure become apparent this year when anti-amyloid vaccination was withdrawn [7] and actually exacerbated the condition - a likely consequence if one considers Abeta as an endogenous protector of neural function! That amyloid might represent an epiphenomena or a compensatory response, while justified scientifically, is blindly avoided [2-5]. However, there is now compelling data that Abeta is NOT the mediator of disease but rather a response (an antioxidant or a sensor of membrane lipids dynamics, for example) to an underlying etiology. We believe that the unipolar discussion of Abeta as toxic has served to severely hamper the advancement of neuroscience by hiding the accumulating evidence that Abeta is a normal and functional component of brain metabolism and synaptic function [7]. 

1 http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm
2 Schenk et al Nature 400, 173 (1999) 
3 Walsh et al Nature 416, 535 (2002) 
4 DeMattos et al Science 295, 2264 (2002) 
5 Dodart et al Nature Neurosci 5, 452 (2002) 
6 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5590/2209b
7 http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7338/656#20681

Neuroscience2002 abstract search is available at: http://sfn.scholarone.com/itin2002

--------------------
ABSTRACT 2
--------------------

AMYLOID DOGMA, SYNAPTIC FUNCTION, AND ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
(Poster abstract, The 3rd Neurobiology of Aging Conference 2002, Oct. 31 - Nov.1, 2002)

The key claim of the amyloid hypothesis is that amyloid beta (Abeta) represents a bad neurotoxic molecule that has to be removed from the brain. Over the past decade this hypothesis grew up into the major dogma of Alzheimer's research. The inability of the toxic concept to advance the "curing" of transgenic mice into patients become apparent earlier this year when anti-amyloid vaccination was halted [1,2]. 

A beneficial role for Abeta is largely not mentioned in the literature. However, the conceivable lack of the Abeta interaction with lipoproteins  (that potently inhibit toxicity of the peptide [see refs in 2]) could exacerbate the lack of the in vivo physiological/therapeutic relevance of the past studies of Abeta effect on synaptic plasticity [3]. Moreover, there is an accumulating evidence that Abeta and its precursor are essential for brain function/chemistry. Particularly, Abeta is an antioxidant and a molecular sensor of membrane lipid dynamics [1,2]. 

Abeta may also serve an essential role in synapse/synaptic plasticity that underlie learning/memory. Thus, it was shown that there is an acute facilitation of tetanus induced long-term potentiation (LTP) and the development of slow onset potentiation in the absence of tetanic stimulation by low dose of Abeta [4,5]. The latter report proposed that Abeta peptides increase the probability of LTP under the paradigm that induced little LTP in control brain slices [5]. The synaptic function for Abeta is additionally supported by several studies by others, particularly, by an increase of synaptic amyloid precursor protein with learning capacity in rats, and by neuronal activity dependent secretion of natural Abeta (see our SFN scientific/history posters for further details).

1. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/296/5575/1991#469
2. http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7338/656#22216
3. Walsh et al. Nature 416, 535 (2002)
4. Wu et al. Europ J Pharm. 284, R1 (1995).
5. Schulz PE. Soc Neurosci Abstr. 22, 2111 (1996) 

Competing interests: none

The 3rd Neurobiology of Aging Conference 2002 web site is available at: http://www.nba-interactivemeeting.com

---------------------------------------
Correspondence Part 1 | Back2Text
--------------------------------------------------
X-Sender: kennedyd@kennedyd.pobox.stanford.edu
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 15:07:15 -0700
To: Alexei Koudinov <koudin@med.pfu.edu.ru>
From: Don Kennedy <kennedyd@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: update on Selkoe conflict of interest: four items to proof conflict

Dear Dr. Koudinov:

The failure of Dr. Selkoe to enter a conflict of interest disclosure on his paper with Dr. Hardy came about because of a procedural error at Science.  Their review was submitted by mail, not electronically; a faxed conflict of interest form should have been sent the authors, but was not.  At our request Dr. Selkoe promptly submitted the form in which he declares his Directorship at Elan.  We will publish his declaration as a Correction, with an explanation absolving him of responsibility for the failure.

The material I have just received from you contains a specific charge related to the timing of the Hardy/Selkoe review.  I am pleased to tell you that it is not confirmed by the facts.  The review was invited over a year ago, submitted in April, reviewed very favorably, and returned to Science late in May.  It was accepted then and scheduled for July 19th.  That schedule was fitted to the AD meeting and not to your dEbate letter,which had not been read by any of those responsible for the scheduling.

I must tell you that I found your claim outlandish -- enough so that it casts serious doubt on this entire campaign

Sincerely yours

Donald Kennedy
Editor-in-Chief 

--------------------------------------------------
At 12:23 AM 9/1/2002 +0000, Alexei Koudinov wrote:

Dear Dr.Kennedy,

I would like  to update you on the matter of my early August inquiry on D Selkoe break of Science non-disclosure policy. The facts that I would like to bring to your attention, however, are extending far beyond my initial request. 

These issue are specified below and are accompanied by my comments (in purple):

Item one:
--------------
Another document (in addition to The Sunday Business Post article of August 18, 2002 that I informed you about two weeks ago) that describes Dr.Selkoe conflict.

------------------------
"Science for Sale : A Harvard researcher stands to profit from a product he "independently" reviewed for the National Institutes of Health. The scientific community, increasingly dependent on corporate money, has no clear way to handle such conflicts." 
The Boston Phoenix, April 29, 1999.
by Tinker Ready 
Article URL: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archives/1999/documents/00521742.htm

PLEASE NOTE that the above article cites Science magazine story (published in 1992) of Selkoe 'Conflict of Interest'.

(the above URL should begin from ' http:// ' and end with ' htm '. So, in case you have problem with opening the above link by simple clicking on it please copy and paste it into the URL bar of your web browser; be sure address starts and ends as indicated above)

You may be interested to know that I found this article as a search result at scholar database. This article is a part of the reading of the course on 'Activism in Medicine' as a part of ethics for medical students.
------------------------

Item two:
--------------
A description of Alzheimer's disease hallmarks and therapeutic targets at Athena Diagnostics web site, the part of Elan where Selkoe is a director (you should notice that Selkoe was a major shareholder and founder of Athena Diagnostics). The citation follows:

------------------------
Neuro-CAST sessions: Neuropathology of Alzheimer's disease
http://www.neurocast.com/site/content/sessions_Neuro_Alzheimer's.shtml#

( the above URL should begin from ' http:// ' and end with ' .shtml# ' )
------------------------

PLEASE NOTE THAT one of sentences on page 2 of this document states: " In a review of a study by Naslund et al., Dennis Selkoe, MD, an Alzheimer's disease specialist from Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital, states, "Abeta accumulation correlates quantitatively with the degree of dementia."" 
 

The above thus indicates that D Selkoe review articles ( about 10 review articles over the last 3 years ), including the latest one in Science magazine, serve to market D Selkoe company products, while there is no mention (in any of D Selkoe review article) that he is a director of Elan (i.e. Athena) and that is his clear commercial interest to support his company products.

Though, supporting products seems not to be the only support. He also support Elan people as indicated by the following item 3.

Item 3.
---------

This item seems to be the coolest one and may represent great story idea (or a part of the story) for Science coverage. I would suggest you to ask the author of the above Boston Phoenix article "Science for Sale" Tinker Ready to write this for you. Tinker is a freelance health and science writer who writes for many magazines including Nature Medicine and WebMD. You can check her works and her contacts at her web site: http://tinkerr.home.attbi.com/

The facts follow:

One of the paragraph of the last year (2001) CNN report at 'Career section' states in regard to the news of Elans' Schenks' development of the Alzheimer's vaccination approach:

"And it's the kind of news that made Schenk winner of this year's coveted Potamkin Prize from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). "It was wonderful," Schenk says, sounding as if he just may have managed to be in the moment when he accepted the award on May 8 at the AAN's annual meeting in Philadelphia. The Potamkin -- seen by some as a potential precursor to Nobel consideration -- is a peer award, and the AAN has some 17,500 neurology professionals in its membership."

Another document (D Selkoe resume at ISI HighlyCited.Com, attached for your convenience as Acrobat .PDF file) indicates that Selkoe is...  a "Potamkin Prize committee chair". 

You can verify the above at some official report of the AAN by Dr.Roger Rosenberg (attached as .PDF imprint of the word document), editor-in-chief of Archives of Neurology, former Potamkin Prize Committee chair (till 1999), and former AAN president. In this document Dr.Rosenberg is calling Potamkin prize as a "Nobel Prize in the field of dementia research" and a "predictor of future Nobel Prizes". He is also mentioning Schenk award and Selkoe chairman status. There is, however, no indication that Selkoe refused to participate in the committee when his Elan employee was seeking the award and succeeded to get it.

The above severely contradicts academic ethics and AAN conflict of interest policy, and indicates the disaster for AAN and Potamkin Prize prestige. If so, in my view yet there is only one way to handle the problem. To make it public and distance from Selkoe break of ethical norms.

Item 4.
---------

In addition to serving as "Potamkin Prize committee chair" D. Selkoe serves as a reviewer for Alzheimer's association, as his ISI resume (attached) indicates (and possible for many other grant awarding institutions), and as an editorial board member (and thus likely reviewer) of at least 13 biomedical journals (as indicates D Selkoe attached resume).

D. Selkoe hiding and not disclosing his close industrial financial affiliation breaks another academic norm set for editors of biomedical journals and for reviewers (of grant proposals and articles by others).
 

I BELIEVE THAT THE above provides strong evidence of D.Selkoe conflict and would caution you against taking D. Selkoe academia/industry conflict as a simple non-disclosure of his financial interest with regard to his review article at Science magazine.

You may be interested to know that there is another issue that people are asking about and would like to know the answer. This question is based on the notion that D.Selkoe and J. Hardy review article was published in July 19, 2002 issue of Science in response on my and my colleagues dEbate letter of June 25, 2002. My subject colleagues do see the above link. The only explanation they have is that Selkoe's article was in some way lobbied at Science to get published in such short period of time. People do not believe that Selkoe article followed regular Science publication schedule, as another review article by Hardy and colleagues (on which we wrote our dEbate letter) was on the subject similar to the review article by Selkoe.

If so, you should know that Selkoe's Elan has Washington, DC based co-director dedicated to lobbying the company interest. This was noted more then four years ago in Nature ("News in Brief" 15 January 1998, Vol. 391, 220 - 221).

Please note, that I have no competing interest and that I have no personal conflict with D.Selkoe. I simple feel responsible for the development of my field, and share your legacy that ""science is a community venture dependent upon shared values, and trust is one of them". I also follow the Society for Neuroscience (where both I and D Selkoe are members) document on "Responsible conduct regarding scientific communication" (attached as .PDF document) that D.Selkoe seems to break as author and as editor.

I request you to confirm this communication.

With best regards for Happy and Prosperous New Academic year 2002/2003 !

Sincerely,
 

Alexei Koudinov

P.S. Below is another latest news on D. Selkoe:

------------------------
The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences has awarded the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine 2002 (USD 150,000) to Professor Dennis J. Selkoe, M.D. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States

URL of the prize announcement and award ceremony date:
http://www.knaw.nl/heinekenprizes/pr_2002/02_02uk.htm
 

--------------------------------------------------
At 08:13 AM 5/8/2002 -0700, Donald Kennedy wrote:

Dear Dr. Koudinov:

We are looking into the matter you raise, and will respond when our evaluation is complete.

Sincerely yours

Donald Kennedy
Editor-in-Chief

--------------------------------------------------
At 11:04 AM 8/5/2002 +0300, Alexei Koudinov wrote:

Dear Dr.Kennedy,

I am writing regarding recent review article by Hardy and Selkoe (Science, Volume 297, Number 5580, Issue of 19 Jul 2002, pp. 353-356). 

This article does not include a note on Dr.Selkoe financial conflict of interests, despite the facts (easily accessible as a search for "Selkoe" at http://www.google.com ) that indicate such conflict (1, 2, 3).

The above suggests that Dr.Selkoe did not declare the conflict of interests and thus breached the Science policy (4) and the public trust and the spirit of openness (5).

I plan to discuss the above issue along with another instance of Dr.Selkoe violation of competing interest policy [of the Nature journal (6)] in a separate appeal to the scientific community and to the public. 

In doing so I would like to know whether Dr.Selkoe declared his conflict of interest before his review article went to press at Science. If not I would like to know whether Science will fix this case of the breach of the public confidence. I would like to have this information, so, I could minimize the inconvenience to Science. 

With best regards,
 

Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD
 

References:

1. Yahoo! - Insider Trades - SELKOE, DENNIS J. Available at: http://biz.yahoo.com/t/36/1063.html

2. Yahoo! - Market Guide - Elan Corporation, plc Available at: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/e/eln.html ( Then click on "More from Market Guide on Officers & Directors: Expanded List" link to have "Selkoe, M.D., Dennis J." listed as Elan Director )

3. Dennis Selkoe, M.D., Elan Director. Available at:
http://www.elan.com/InvestorRelations/Overview/Biography/DennisSelkoe.asp?ComponentID=1547&SourcePageID=1662

(please note that the above URL will likely become truncated in your e.mail (as soon as many e.mail programs truncate email messages' lines at some length) and thus will not be executable upon the mouse click. In such a case please copy and paste the above URL into your web browser address window. The address should begin with " http:// " and end with " =1662 "

4. Science Conflict of Interest form. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/prep/conflict.pdf

5. Smith R. Beyond conflict of interest. BMJ 1998;317:291-292, Available at: http://bmj.com/cgi/content/short/317/7154/291

6. In our earlier communication with Nature regarding recent Nature article by Selkoe et al [Walsh, D.M. et al. Naturally secreted oligomers of amyloid b-protein potently inhibit hippocampal long-term potentiation in vivo. Nature 416, 535-539. (2002)] we brought editors' attention to the possibility of Dr.Selkoe competing interests. The authors response (mediated by Nature and dated 23 April 2002) was the following:

"Dr Selkoe no longer has has any connection with the companies you list (AK: Athena and Elan) because of the 1997 ruling by Harvard University prohibiting such connections among its faculty members." 

The above statement contradicts recently discovered and cited above documents (1,2,3).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back2Text