"There's no doubt in my mind that, as an effective therapy emerges that slows down the course of the disease, we will find the marker for it," Thies said. "The two are linked almost arm-in-arm and will develop together. Advances in one will drag the other along."
Some people, however, question the direction of research -- worrying that efforts have been too tightly focused on eliminating amyloid from the brain, particularly given the failures in early trials.
"People who work in the field raise the question, 'Should we be doing all this amyloid work?'" Thies said. "But it's the most mature of the ideas so you have to follow it through."
Questions also have arisen as to whether Alzheimer's research is getting enough attention. Money spent by the government on Alzheimer's, for instance, lags behind research funding for other major diseases. The U.S. National Institutes of Health expects to spend $527 million on Alzheimer's disease research in the current fiscal year, compared with $6.1 billion on cancer research, $3 billion on HIV/AIDS and $1.9 billion on heart disease research, according to spending data released Feb. 1.
This disparity in spending on Alzheimer's stems in part from the fact that the United States does not have a national plan aimed at tackling research and treatment, Harry Johns, chief executive of the Alzheimer's Association, told HealthDay. England, France and Australia have such plans, but the United States does not, he said.
That might be in part because many Americans see Alzheimer's as an inevitable end-of-life disease. "A lot of people still equate getting older with loss of cognitive process," Morris said. "They consider it a part of getting older. They don't see it as a disease that reduces life span."
Whatever the reason, researchers say that the aging of the U.S. population means that Alzheimer's needs to be tackled now or the United State
'/>"/>
| Copyright©2010 ScoutNews,LLC. All rights reserved |