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

What causes Alzheimer's? Scientists are rethinking the answer

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 243 posts

Re: What causes Alzheimer's? Scientists are rethinking the answer

#3

Post by eganist »

Deeper reading into one such alternative: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7660461/

There's a follow-up study on the herpes angle currently in progress (https://www.alzheimers.gov/clinical-trials/valacyclovir-mild...) after this one (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13311-018-0611-x) in Taiwan, for instance.

Re: What causes Alzheimer's? Scientists are rethinking the answer

#4

Post by wwwtyro »

I'm fine with most researchers pursuing a particular direction, but I get concerned when incentives align that provide a significant pressure for them to research what they wouldn't naturally want to research. It seems like there should be a distribution of research directions, not everyone in lockstep. It's hard to gauge from the outside to what degree that is happening in our research institutions today.

Re: What causes Alzheimer's? Scientists are rethinking the answer

#5

Post by simmerup »

g42gregory wrote: post #2

In many scientific research projects the same dangerous theme keeps surfacing: monolithic thinking, with “no alternatives allowed”. I feel this is very detrimental to both scientific progress as well as to the broader society.

You'd think that after a decade of failed results, someone would go back to the drawing board and start again. But it never seems to happen.

Re: What causes Alzheimer's? Scientists are rethinking the answer

#6

Post by clairity »

g42gregory wrote: post #2

In many scientific research projects the same dangerous theme keeps surfacing: monolithic thinking, with “no alternatives allowed”. I feel this is very detrimental to both scientific progress as well as to the broader society.

that's true for any sociopolitical system, and the reason why i push back on dichotomous thinking, especially "left-right" or "democrat-republican" in political discussions. this is the central exploration of Wisdom of Crowds, which i recommend to everyone even though it's considered 'old' now.

Re: What causes Alzheimer's? Scientists are rethinking the answer

#7

Post by caycep »

wwwtyro wrote: post #4

I'm fine with most researchers pursuing a particular direction, but I get concerned when incentives align that provide a significant pressure for them to research what they wouldn't naturally want to research. It seems like there should be a distribution of research directions, not everyone in lockstep. It's hard to gauge from the outside to what degree that is happening in our research institutions today.

In theory, that's where a lot of individual NIH grants are supposed to do - K level and R level grants. However, NIH people tend to have gotten risk adverse so they look to certain parameter to "vet" whoever gets the money amongst all sorts of applications. The idea is one thing, but also - whose lab you're being mentored in, prior funding success, etc etc play an equal if not more important role.

I think the problem then is...if you have some promising directions from preliminary work, to test an idea in clinical trials, it is not cheap. You have to hire a large army of clinicians, nurses, research people, etc etc to manage all the patients/subjects x 10,000 or 50,000. So there has to be at least some politicking to steer where all the research funds go to. And people who are better at "finessing" scientific review boards tend to bubble to the top

Re: What causes Alzheimer's? Scientists are rethinking the answer

#9

Post by pbj1968 »

caycep wrote: post #7
wwwtyro wrote: post #4

I'm fine with most researchers pursuing a particular direction, but I get concerned when incentives align that provide a significant pressure for them to research what they wouldn't naturally want to research. It seems like there should be a distribution of research directions, not everyone in lockstep. It's hard to gauge from the outside to what degree that is happening in our research institutions today.

In theory, that's where a lot of individual NIH grants are supposed to do - K level and R level grants. However, NIH people tend to have gotten risk adverse so they look to certain parameter to "vet" whoever gets the money amongst all sorts of applications. The idea is one thing, but also - whose lab you're being mentored in, prior funding success, etc etc play an equal if not more important role. I think the problem…

Nobody gets a K award on their own merits. Unless your mentoring committee is well funded and walking lockstep with conventional wisdom, your application is dead in the water.
Post reply on HN