Retraction of Alzheimer’s Study Highlights Flawed Data Concerns

In a significant development in the field of neuroscience, Dr. Gary Dunbar, a prominent neuroscientist at Central Michigan University, has been compelled to retract a paper originally published in 2020 in the *International Journal of Molecular Sciences*. This action comes in the wake of a troubling revelation concerning the integrity of the data presented in the study, which focused on potential neuroprotective effects of boron-based compounds against Alzheimer’s disease. The retraction was formally announced on July 3, 2025, amid ongoing replication efforts by Dunbar himself.

The initial study proposed that these boron compounds might mitigate Alzheimer’s-like pathology in mice by reducing neuroinflammation and amyloid plaques. However, it has since been revealed that some images used in the paper were duplicated, raising serious questions about the validity of the findings. According to the retraction notice, Dunbar and his team could not satisfactorily explain the irregularities identified in the images, which were intended to represent different experimental conditions.

Dr. Dunbar expressed his dismay over the situation, stating, "This has been more than a nightmare. There’s no question that our lead author put in duplicate images." The lead author in question, Panchanan Maiti, has previously faced scrutiny leading to other retractions and corrections associated with his work. The investigation conducted by Central Michigan University had cleared Dunbar of direct involvement in the misconduct, although it did highlight lapses in oversight.

The controversy surrounding this research began in October 2021 when concerns were raised on the post-publication review platform, PubPeer, regarding multiple papers co-authored by Dunbar and Maiti. Following these allegations, the university initiated an investigation but ultimately concluded that Dunbar had not played an active role in any misconduct. Nonetheless, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the university conduct a more thorough inquiry into the boron study, particularly as it had received partial funding from a federal grant.

In April 2023, Dunbar requested the retraction of both the boron study and a related paper on liraglutide, an antidiabetic drug thought to have neuroprotective properties. He noted in his correspondence with the journal that, despite significant efforts, his team was unable to verify the histological data associated with these studies.

As of October 2023, Dunbar confirmed that he had begun experiments to replicate both studies, having received the necessary approvals from his institution’s animal care committee. He expressed hope that the journal would allow time for these critical experiments to be completed, stating, "I hope you might convince your colleagues to allow us time to redo critical parts of these studies, so that we can provide the readers with an accurate and complete analyses, along with access to the complete data sets for both of these studies."

Meanwhile, the fate of the liraglutide paper remains uncertain, with the journal issuing an expression of concern regarding its findings, pending confirmation through further experimentation. This situation underscores the challenges facing researchers in the field, as they navigate the complexities of data integrity and the ethical responsibilities associated with scientific publication.

Experts in the field of neuroscience have remarked on the implications of this incident for academic research. Dr. Sarah Johnson, a Professor of Neuroscience at Stanford University, noted, "The integrity of research data is paramount, not just for the reputation of individual scientists, but for the entire scientific community. This incident highlights the need for rigorous peer review and transparency in research practices."

As Dunbar continues his efforts to replicate the findings of the controversial studies, the broader implications of this case will likely resonate throughout the scientific community, prompting discussions about data verification, ethical standards, and the mechanisms of accountability in research. The outcome of the replication studies may not only impact Dunbar’s career but could also influence future funding and research directions in Alzheimer’s disease therapies.