Thank you for your comment. I am not saying the field was not stalled because of these frauds, I am saying I do not think it was significantly stalled. I think fraud is an easy scapegoat for broader issues, especially when the case that people keep referring to is whether a single amyloid beta oligomer species is involved. There are some very esteemed researchers who do not believe oligomers are physiologically relevant or discrete enough to be analyzed at all. I am trying to point out the ways that "amyloid hypothesis" actually refers to many distinct things to try to prevent very non-specific reactions like another comment that replied to me had, where we decide to throw out amyloid research entirely for chronic inflammation, etc.

If we want less fraud, we need less incentives for fraud. What do you think the easiest route to take is when funding in a field that already attracts some nutso people is cut every year? That so little fraud happens is a testament to the integrity of most scientists. I grew up part of an ascetic religious sect. The personality types of many scientists in the field are that of the hermits I knew as a child. You probably cannot totally get rid of fraud, some people cannot really seem to produce anything themselves, they exist, they will find some way to survive (often better than those who are not this way). You can keep rates of fraud low, but if you think it is more prevalent than it is, you risk developing a social autoimmune disease. Remember that means-testing has its own costs, too.