12 ms·
Are you arguing that Alzheimer's research isn't basic research? That it's got so much fraud because people demand immediate practical value from it? How does th
by mike_hearn 2y ago
Are you arguing that Alzheimer's research isn't basic research? That it's got so much fraud because people demand immediate practical value from it? How does that square with the fact that they've been researching it for decades, haven't found a cure or even a solid understanding of the cause, and still get funded? Surely this is an exemplar of basic research?
- AceyMan 2y ago'Basic research' has a specific meaning in the natural sciences, which, I suspect, is how the OP was using the phrase.
- mike_hearn 2y agoInteresting. What's the definition they use?
- BenFranklin100 2y agoIf the authors are pushing a novel or shaky hypothesis that purports to provide a potential cure (as they often do), yes this might not fall under basic research. For instance, arguing a particular pathway is the cause of AD without first characterizing the pathway and how it affects humans can waste tens of million dollars and cost years. In the balance between trying to quickly develop a therapeutic and understanding the basic mechanisms driving the disease etiology, we see a lot of research groups with under powered studies playing fast and loose and hyping their research. Is it outright fraud? Rarely. But it’s not good science either.