4 ms·

It is easy in retrospect to see that going all in on the amyloid hypothesis was a mistake. But that is always true once a hypothesis has been proven false (or

It is easy in retrospect to see that going all in on the amyloid hypothesis was a mistake. But that is always true once a hypothesis has been proven false (or at least not completely true). Is it possible to look at this as a very large “fail fast” experiment? Given the limited funding, would it really have been better to spread it over many hypotheses, rather than pick the most likely, and test a minimal viable solution?

vidarh 7y ago
It may well be that the right strategy sometimes is to pour most funding into the most promising candidate, but the question is how large a proportion of the funding that ought to be vs. how much is left over to fund at least initial inquiries into alternatives. Even more so how soon you should rebalance funding if further progress isn't achieved with respect to your biggest bet.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
I collaborate with an expert in Alzheimer's Disease. She stated to me that the Amyloid hypothesis was so strong for so long because it is "like the garbage left over in a stadium after a big event...you see concrete evidence something happened, it's obvious this garbage is bad and should be cleaned up, but the garbage itself did not cause the event."
ppseafield 7y ago
It's hard to see this as a fail fast experiment when: > In more than two dozen interviews, scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences. It's one thing to go all-in on a hypothesis, but another to undermine other folks' hypotheses directly. Especially when your hypothesis has not produced any results for decades.

vidarh 7y ago

It may well be that the right strategy sometimes is to pour most funding into the most promising candidate, but the question is how large a proportion of the funding that ought to be vs. how much is left over to fund at least initial inquiries into alternatives. Even more so how soon you should rebalance funding if further progress isn't achieved with respect to your biggest bet.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

I collaborate with an expert in Alzheimer's Disease. She stated to me that the Amyloid hypothesis was so strong for so long because it is "like the garbage left over in a stadium after a big event...you see concrete evidence something happened, it's obvious this garbage is bad and should be cleaned up, but the garbage itself did not cause the event."

ppseafield 7y ago

It's hard to see this as a fail fast experiment when: > In more than two dozen interviews, scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences. It's one thing to go all-in on a hypothesis, but another to undermine other folks' hypotheses directly. Especially when your hypothesis has not produced any results for decades.