Brain research enters 'golden era' at Stanford | January 6, 2017 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

- January 6, 2017

Brain research enters 'golden era' at Stanford

Alzheimer's center accelerates new studies, trials, drugs

by Chris Kenrick

For patients suffering from Alzheimer's disease, little progress in the way of treatment has been made for decades, says Stanford neurologist and biotechnology pioneer Frank Longo, who chairs the Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, co-leads the new Stanford Neuroscience Health Center and serves as associate director of the Stanford Alzheimer's Research Center.

This story contains 1047 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Contributing writer Chris Kenrick can be emailed at


10 people like this
Posted by Ugh!
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 6, 2017 at 2:21 pm

Ugh! is a registered user.

Stanford concentrates on research and more research, burning money all the while with conclusions that are,more often than not, utterly useful.

Meanwhile, UCSF concentrates on results and comes up with cures.

This may be a reason why Stanford Med School grads are less desirable as hospital residents and doctors than UCSF Med School grads.

7 people like this
Posted by john_alderman
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jan 6, 2017 at 8:33 pm

john_alderman is a registered user.

@ Ugh - That's fairly petty, isn't it? The article is largely about Dr. Frank M. Longo who in /collaboration/ with Dr. Stephen Massa at UCSF, discovered a new alzheimer's medication. Two schools, getting along, working together..

9 people like this
Posted by ohgosh
a resident of another community
on Jan 7, 2017 at 10:59 am

As a volunteer participant in this research, I am sorry that someone deems this endeavor at Stanford to be useless. Much is learned from these efforts --every discovery is not suddenly presented in a beautiful gift-wrapped package for those involved in the search. It is a long, arduous goal that comes with continued work and patience and the day will come when the findings will pinpoint the conclusions that are made toward the ability to quell the monsters that rob the mind in old age or before. How is anything worthwhile attained? I sense some sour grapes from one who might have tried to become a part of the Stanford Medical School but somehow did not made the grade. The researchers are all in this together regardless of where they are planted.

1 person likes this
Posted by read it
a resident of Midtown
on Jan 7, 2017 at 6:23 pm

Hey Ugh!, "utterly useful" is a good thing.

5 people like this
Posted by anne
a resident of Green Acres
on Jan 8, 2017 at 7:06 am

"You can take two brains from patients; they have the same amounts of amyloid and tau (both are proteins in the brain that interfere with synaptic connections), and one person can barely function and the other is functioning normally. Why?"

The other question I would ask is, why have dementia rates in the US dropped 24%, which is huge - have other nations seen a similar improvement? Why are people with more education less prone to dementia? Are those facts related?

My grandfather developed dementia symptoms pretty late. My mother and aunt complained that he could barely speak and was forgetting everything. When I spoke with him, I couldn't tell what they were talking about, he seemed little different. The difference is that his daughters spoke with him in their native language, but I spoke with him in English and the language he had used in school, both of which he had spent most of his life learning and relearning, and probably worked different parts of his brain than his native tongue. It's sad that we diidn't compare notes until later, after my mom had realized my grandfather was much more normal if she spoke with him in English. Then she said it was as if he was forgetting his native tongue (less like he was forgetting everything completely).

At one point in my own life, undiagnosed infection robbed me of my ability to speak and read in the other language besides English that my grandfather and I shared (among much else). The assumption was that the language was simply lost because .i wasn't studying it, even though I was reading great literature in that language on a regular basis. When the disease was properly treated, I was surprised to fibd I was suddenly able to read in that language again. I have always thought the issue was the part of my brain able to access the language. The process that took away that ability was likely affecting my system and brain for some time before it hit that particular part.

Perhaps the dementia is related to where the brain is affected more than the fact that there are plaques (or other reasons for damage). Perhaps we all have different pathways to compensate, and educated people perhaps have more, and it isn't until they are all compromised that dementia becomes obvious. Since dementia is likely caused by many things, the ability to work with individuals to figure out how to restore each individual's cognitive function or to protect each person's cognitive health individually is pretty important. I don't see that happening yet, especially not as a major research approach.

Anyway, while I disagree with the idea that answers have to be slow and incremental @ohgosh, I certainly agree with you that longterm research is critically important and that this work described here at Stanford is a fresh approach. I would just hope to see a greater number of different approaches and better guidelines for empirical work with individuals, too.

I understand the concern of seeming to experiment on people, but given the facts pointing to so many differences, perhaps it's time we developed guidelines for ethical empirical work with individuals. Perhaps the evidence points to dementia being many things, and continuing to approach it from a population and single treatment perspective will never work well. Can we develop an armament of things that is worth just trying? For example, some researchers propose evidence of certain kinds of infections - developing better antibiotics to cross the blood brain barrier, with minimal side effects, would allow researchers to simply try something to see if it helps, who it helps, when it helps, even how it helps (in combination with other drugs? a slow treatment over time? etc)

Given that little has changed in 20 years for patients, it might be helpful to revisit Thomas Kuhn's Structure of a Scientific Revolution, the work from which the word "paradigm" became popularized. The hallmark of a paradigm on its last legs, in need of shifting, is that fewer and fewer problems are solved, making advances takes more and more time and manpower, and advances are incremental and slow. With a nod to the above, perhaps the answer may be in another part of the collective brain, and we must consider also taking radically different approaches, simultaneously, not just in Alzheimers work, but also in cancer, etc. The actual science is going through a revolution while treatment results continue to take mostly small steps, per results. How do we change that?

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.