Alzheimer’s,
a type of dementia, is known for causing grave problems in terms of memory,
thinking, and especially behavior. Symptoms tend to develop slowly, getting
worse over time. Final result: Interferes with daily tasks and individuality.
The article states that a couple of researchers at Yale School of Medicine have
discovered a new drug compound which is said to, as the title suggests, reverse
the brain deficits of Alzheimer’s disease. This was done on an animal model,
more specifically, on mice. The name of this compound is TC-2153, which,
according to the article, inhibits the effects of a protein named
STtriatal-Enriched tyrosine Phosphatase (STEP for short), which is commonly
known to regulate brain functions such as memory and learning. The decrease of STEP levels in mice reversed
the effects of the Alzheimer’s disease. Now, it’s great that these scientists
claim to have found this drug, which could potentially be used to cure
Alzheimer’s disease. However, it would be extremely difficult for this to be
proven to me, as a reader. These are just simple words on a computer, which
although seem to weight quite a lot, there are no images, diagrams, or videos
to demonstrate the process. Greek philosopher Plato once said that knowledge
was “justifiable true belief”. Now there is no way, that readers of this
article can know for an absolute fact that this drug was actually successful.
Now of course, why would an article be put on Science Daily if its content was
not entirely proven? The answer is simple; it is, of course, most likely that
this drug does exist and it did in fact reverse the brain deficits caused by
Alzheimer’s. Nevertheless, there is still this recurring doubt that prevents us
readers to trust completely the subject of this article. There are techniques, however, to achieve
this absolute trust. As learned in the Theory of Knowledge course, they are known
as the three truth checks: coherence, correspondence, and pragmatism.
Pragmatism focuses on whether it is practical or not. Well, as stated in the
article, it successfully worked on mice, although, whether it works on humans
or not is still undiscovered. The drug itself seems legitimate and after
researching the properties of TC-2153, it seems like they could in fact relate
to solving the many problems caused by Alzheimer’s. What STEP does, is that it
keeps the synapses in the brain from strengthening, which is absolutely
required for people to convert short-term memories into long-term memories. TC-2153’s
role is that when it comes in, it starts to block this disruption, preventing
neuropsychiatric as well as neurodegenerative disorders. After having used
these tools to check the truth, I strongly believe this article is reliable in terms
of its contents. Through the three truth checks, I was able to gather information,
which, in a way, proved the reliability of this article and what it is
claiming.
Word Count: 511
Joachim, I think you were wise to hesitate in believing the original claim. Like you, I would have been skeptical about such a drug in the first place and if, as you say, there were no charts or graphs on the article, then that further my suspicion. Of course one cannot rely only on facts but if this drugs claims to have fix Alzheimer's in rats some evidence would be advisable. Another thing to consider with this experiment is that it was conducted on rats and not humans. Could and would this drug be able fix this illness in humans? And, although biologically this drug is fixing the Alzheimer's in rats one cannot know how they are feeling. This sound silly but if humans were to use this drug what are the possible side effects of it? There are more to drugs than simply working biologically. This can be related to treatments for cancer. Although many drugs work well with someones body, their mental state is unwell. Therefore, many cancer patients stop taking the drugs although it is working.
ReplyDeleteYou're on the right track, Joaquim, but it's best to avoid looking for claiming to have "absolute trust" or any absolute of any kind. That's one of the lessons of the junior year: we have to grow comfortable with some level of uncertainty. Also, in terms of the pragmatic test, a better way to talk about as applied to this claim would in asking if it is practical for either you or the scientists to believe the claim is true? What purpose of use does belief in this claim serve for you or for them? Also, you might have developed the idea of "model" here, asking what kind of knowledge a model gives us, and investigating what a scientific model is.
ReplyDelete