3 ms·

> But considering the unusually conservative old boys club that seems to dominate alzheimers research This seems like an interesting claim, worth substantiatin

• ImaCake 5y ago
  Sure, there's a bit of a phenonemon where a small group of labs come to dominate a field of research through a positive feedback loop. They have some initial success, and then can get funding, they then have increased resources to effectively lobby for more funding, squeezing out other groups. Often leading scientists have a lot of influence over the grant funding bodies, but my understanding of these politics is murky. Often this isn't too problematic, but the Alzheimer's field seems really hell bent on the beta-amyloid thing which looks good on the surface but every drug they have tried (and many have been tried) hasn't worked in practice. Here's a nature news article [0] discussing the beta-amyloid failed drugs story. You will note quotes from leading researchers from Harvard and other prestigious institutes still defending drugs against beta-amyloid despite the history of failure. These leading labs should be looking at different tactics, but the quotes seem to suggest that as of 2018 these groups were still intent on the same strategy despite the failures. 0. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05719-4