Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Drug reverses brain deficit of Alzheimer's in animal model

Article from ScienceDaily claims to have found a drug which reverses brain deficit of Alzheimer's.


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

2 comments:

  1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You'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