Dear Editor: I appreciate The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) excellent Science journal article "Scientists World-Wide Battle a Narrow View of Alzheimer's Cause" (16 April 2004, p.A.9) as well as earlier public-eye-opening WSJ article "Is Alzheimer's Field Blocking Research Into Other Causes?" (9 April 2004, p.B.1). Both articles provide a long needed true view on state of affairs in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. I therefore do not agree with the Alzheimer's association letter to the WSJ editor that April 16 article by Sharon Begley "incorrectly implies Alzheimer science is headed down a blind alley". Oppositely to the Association view I and many other scientists firsthand involved in AD research believe that Alzheimer's neuroscience is indeed "headed down a blind alley" and is under the arrest by the amyloid dogma. What WSJ reports miss is the coverage of the severe competing financial interest by an Alzheimer's field leader, well qualified to be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Unfortunately, one can not exclude that Alzheimer's association and National Institute of Aging (i.e. major non-government and government bodies funding AD research, respectively) are the parts of the amyloid cabal. Such view comes to mind after reading earlier WSJ article "Did Ties To Alzheimer's Test Maker Sway NIH Report?" (30 Nov 1998), associated Nature Medicine (Vol.5, 713, 1999) coverage and Boston Phoenix article "Science for Sale" (29 April 1999); and the testimony of Richard J. Hodes, M.D., Director, National Institute on Aging (NIA) to the Labor-HHS Subcommittee Hearing on Alzheimer's Disease Research (23 March 2004); the fact of awarding Alzheimer's association grant to Denis Selkoe in 1999; his service for a National Institute of Health as a member of the NIH NACA (National Advisory Council on Aging) for a number of years; and his listing as a speaker at the upcoming Alzheimer's Association Research Conference, Philadelphia, PA, July 17-22, 2004 (Program for Monday, July 19, 2004) without acknowledging Dr. Selkoe' service as director for Elan Corporation, plc, the conference Premier Level Sponsor. I personally doubt Sheldon Goldberg letter to the editor statement that Alzheimer's association has "the fairest review systems" for grant proposals. My view is based on the no response by Alzheimer's Association on my concern regarding Alzheimer's Association grant reviewers' competing interests explained in my last year letter to the Association top official (21 January 2004, provided below). If the review system is fair I wonder why the same reviewer when asked for "Applicant information" (i.e. on "Does the applicant and if appropriate his/her co-workers have the required experience and scientific or technical training to carry out this research project?") assigns to my two last year distinct grant proposals the score of "nine" and "seven" ("ten" being the highest possible score), respectively. Can this and other grant applications critics' discrepancy be explained by the reasons other then bias? I further had hard time understanding Sheldon Goldberg estimation that "of the $15 million we awarded 75 researchers last year, 30 percent went to amyloid research, with the bulk to diagnosis, risk management, care, and diversity issues." Those who apply for Alzheimer's association funds know that the association has three areas of interest: "Research into the causes of Alzheimers disease"; "Research into diagnosis, treatment, and prevention"; "Research into improving care". Does it mean that "30 percent went to amyloid research" represents near ALL funds allocated for "research into the causes of Alzheimers disease"? I and my colleagues are indebted to The Wall Street Journal for Sharon Begley investigation and look forward hearing more on Alzheimer's disease research. Without your help we scientists will not get rid of the amyloid cabal. Will it be in the public interest? Sincerely, Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD
cc: U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman,
U.S. Senator Thad Cochrain, U.S. Senator Judd Gregg, U.S. Senator Larry
Craig, U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, U.S.
Senator Mike Dewine, U.S. Senator Richard Shelby, Speakers at U.S. Senate
Committee on Appropriations: Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education that held a hearing on Alzheimer's research, March 23, 2004.
Competing interests:
I do not have any competing financial interest. I aim free information
dissemination and an unbiased development of Alzheimer's neuroscience.
I observe the
Society for Neuroscience Guidelines
for Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication. I am a founding,
managing and publishing editor of the Neurobiology of Lipids, an unpaid
position. Neurobiology of Lipids (ISSN 1683-5506) has no affiliation with
any professional association, publisher, industry member, commercial enterprise,
public or government organization. The viewpoint presented in this letter
is my personal view.
|