WASHINGTON — Is seeking a cure for Alzheimer’s disease hopeless? Is Biogen’s recent decision to repurpose a failed Alzheimer’s trial an elaborate parlor trick? And what about Pfizer’s decision to walk away entirely from neuroscience entirely?

The unanswered questions in the field of Alzheimer’s research can make the average observer’s head spin.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Jeffrey Borenstein’s comment “It took 10 years to get to the moon. And this is a lot more complicated” is more than a good one-liner; it may be the central issue in the emergence of products for Alzheimer’s. In 2015 Beierlein et al., published an analysis of Alzheimer’s product development titled “Patterns of Innovation in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development: A Strategic Assessment Based on Technological Maturity.” Using an analytical model for the maturation of basic science, Beierlein et al. observed: “This analysis suggests that AD drug discovery has followed a predictable pattern of innovation in which technological maturity is an important determinant of success in development. Quantitative analysis indicates that the lag in emergence of new products, and the much-heralded clinical failures of recent years, should be viewed in the context of the ongoing maturation of AD-related technologies. Although these technologies were not sufficiently mature to generate successful products a decade ago, they may be now.” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149291815009315