Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

statnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 398 posts

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#61

Post by adrianN »

dhimes wrote: post #52
praptak wrote: post #32

The major and established beliefs in science usually have some fringe competition/opposition. You can only tell in hindsight whether it's "a cabal stifling valid criticism" or "scientists refusing to waste time on distractions".

This is an extremely important point. Since I was a grad student, there have been at least 5 monumental "findings" in physics: 1. A spinning top weighs less if it spins one way than if it spins the other 2. A "fifth force," IIRC it was linked to baryons 3. The climate is warming, not (as people thought) cooling 4. Superconductivity can be achieved at high (liquid Ln2) temperatures 5. Fusion can be achieved at low (ro…

AFAIK at no point in time were there more publications predicting cooling than publications predicting warming. It was just the popsci media that almost exclusively predicted another ice age.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#62

Post by dhimes »

adrianN wrote: post #61
dhimes wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extremely important point. Since I was a grad student, there have been at least 5 monumental "findings" in physics: 1. A spinning top weighs less if it spins one way than if it spins the other 2. A "fifth force," IIRC it was linked to baryons 3. The climate is warming, not (as people thought) cooling 4. Superconductivity can be achieved at high (liquid Ln2) temperatures 5. Fusion can be achieved at low (ro…

AFAIK at no point in time were there more publications predicting cooling than publications predicting warming. It was just the popsci media that almost exclusively predicted another ice age.

I wasn't old enough to have access to original journals (nor the ability to understand them) in the 1970s, but Science News was considered a trustworthy source, as was Scientific American, for the layman.

EDIT: Frondo's link (sibling comment) points out how Science News got it wrong.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#63

Post by twic »

bransonf wrote: post #29

I only learned of the flaws in the amyloid hypothesis a few weeks ago. The single most influential thing I read was this. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4207354/

I studied Alzheimer's a bit during my degree, so in 2002 or so, and it seemed pretty clear that the amyloid hypothesis was wrong even then. I had no idea it was still the dominant paradigm.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#64

Post by zorked »

ivalm wrote: post #57
g42gregory wrote: post #47

An honest question: How does this compare to the group-think in the climate change/global warming research? Are we similarly rejecting funding to any research that does not fit into the common consensus? The fact that we call some people "climate change deniers" tells me that we have an unhealthy dynamics going on there. Will it take 30 years to get to the same point?

> The fact that we call some people "climate change deniers" tells me that we have an unhealthy dynamics going on there 1. Climate change is observable, it doesnt rely on a theory, just measurements. Nonetheless there are a bunch of people trying to discredit what is essentially a very well established observation. 2. Genesis of climate change (ie is it anthropogenic) is not a direct observable, but looking at concen…

The biggest red flag is that "climate change deniers" aren't a fringe group of meteorologists, but a group of politically-inclined people who also denounce "cultural Marxism" and other crank theories.

I assume that actual expert skeptics are given a lot more respect but also get far less exposure than deniers.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#65

Post by praptak »

dhimes wrote: post #52
praptak wrote: post #32

The major and established beliefs in science usually have some fringe competition/opposition. You can only tell in hindsight whether it's "a cabal stifling valid criticism" or "scientists refusing to waste time on distractions".

This is an extremely important point. Since I was a grad student, there have been at least 5 monumental "findings" in physics: 1. A spinning top weighs less if it spins one way than if it spins the other 2. A "fifth force," IIRC it was linked to baryons 3. The climate is warming, not (as people thought) cooling 4. Superconductivity can be achieved at high (liquid Ln2) temperatures 5. Fusion can be achieved at low (ro…

And its physics, where I believe that it is cheaper to try weird experiments. Even if the equipment costs are high, you can probably book 5 minutes on it to let a grad do something seemingly silly.

In pharmacy even a simple trial on mice may take months, which translates to $$$. Not even mentioning how expensive (and hard to get approved) a trial on humans is. I can understand the desire to focus on the "promising" approaches while dismissing what looks like a distraction.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#66

Post by igorkraw »

gyuserbti wrote: post #59
igorkraw wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm all for changing funding systems I want to point out that there fact we have these scandals is the system somewhat working . Similarly to how constant criticism of the government/large corporations isn't a sign of rot, but of a system where improvements are still possible -as long as someone is pointing out the problems you can fix them. And science is not supposed to be immune to this, the culture of scien…

This standard sentiment seems to me to be a machiavellian justification for the status quo and for not trying to improve anything. The costs of the problems are the problem, not whether they are eventually resolved extremely ineffiently.

Yes, we can improve things, but it is important to recognise that the scientific method and process is the best thing we have right now to figure this stuff out. Making it more open and reliable (open acces by default, data and code publication by default,more funding options that encourage public participation and replication studies etc.) is definitely possible but the core is not rotten. Especially some private interests (oligarchs and those with that ambition, "race realists" etc.) like to push the meme that something is fundamentally broken with publicly funded science and we shouldn't trust those ivory tower academics - often because those academics are actually able to go for the truth instead of following the market (i.e. create disinformation). This is what I'm pushing back against

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#67

Post by WalterBright »

birdyrooster wrote: post #12
WalterBright wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is funded: 1. by desire for profit 2. by desire for political gain 3. by charitable impulses by people with money to spare Each has its problems and advantages. Best if we allow all three.

Does creating weapons of mass destruction count for profit, political gain, both or something else?

Generally speaking, government funded research is allocated for political gain. For example, defense R+D projects are famously (infamously?) allocated to the districts of Congressmen whose votes are needed.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#68

Post by ivalm »

zorked wrote: post #64
ivalm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that we call some people "climate change deniers" tells me that we have an unhealthy dynamics going on there 1. Climate change is observable, it doesnt rely on a theory, just measurements. Nonetheless there are a bunch of people trying to discredit what is essentially a very well established observation. 2. Genesis of climate change (ie is it anthropogenic) is not a direct observable, but looking at concen…

The biggest red flag is that "climate change deniers" aren't a fringe group of meteorologists, but a group of politically-inclined people who also denounce "cultural Marxism" and other crank theories. I assume that actual expert skeptics are given a lot more respect but also get far less exposure than deniers.

I agree with you, but I think your argument is not a good way to engage with skeptics because it is basically an appeal to authority, but scientists precisely dont have much authority in their eyes.

Measuring outside temperature, however, is a lived experience for them. And this is what we have done (in a more complicated fashion) for years now. This, to me, is a more convincing argument.

Re: How an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure

#69

Post by arethuza »

igorkraw wrote: post #53
sillysaurusx wrote: post #35

The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them. The point is that people are actively discouraged from asking questions and following up on them. People lose their careers and livelihoods for asking the wrong sorts of questions. Truth is no barrier to social backlash. In fact, questions that might be true tend to be the ones that get people the most heate…

On the specific topic of IQ and scientific racism, the "centrist" position of "just asking questions" has been a cloak for agendas and not caring about the truth for a while now. Exhibit A: https://mobile.twitter.com/Simon_Whitten/status/117331966332... Exhibit B, what happens when you actually dig into the science behind the most well known peddler of the IQ is real and important, therefore racism is actually not a…

Great comment - sometimes I wish that HN would allow you to "spend" karma by upvoting multiple times (mind you - I can see the disadvantages of this as well).

You've managed to capture a lot of my own unease about discussions of IQ - not being from the US (and most definitely not being a fan of IQ tests as a concept) I've often felt I was missing out on some other underlying aspect when IQ is discussed.

Post reply on HN