Some of you may be aware that in science, majority of the fields are chasing things which cannot be seen with the human eye. This may seem like an impossible task but said fields have adapted very well, with the development of amazing technologies that give us the ability to see natural phenomena, without actually seeing it directly. One of the oldest and well-known technology is the microscope which, for the first time in the 1600s, allowed Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, known as the father of microbiology, to see the first bacterium. However, we now know that there are even smaller things than bacteria; proteins, carbohydrates and lipids are the building blocks of our cells and even they are made of atoms, which are even smaller. So small in fact that even the very light that touches our eyes are larger, making it virtually impossible to see even with the most powerful light microscope. However, as I stated, scientists have adapted to this blindness. Although, despite our remarkable abilities to detect such small matter, it is also reasonable to assume that it can be easy to make mistakes
This leads to my own personal experience as a junior researcher. I am currently writing my thesis in the field of biophysics. That is, using physics to ask and answer biological questions. For the last few months, I have been working with a plant-based compound containing a glucose molecule attached to a chemical group containing fluorescent properties. For those of you who don’t know, fluorescence is essentially the ability of molecules to release light when stimulated by another light source concentrated in a laser. Us scientists have an almost endless number of fluorescent molecules in our arsenal, each one able to target certain parts of the cell, making the once invisible, visible. However, this molecule was different, no one has even reported a glucose containing molecule with fluorescent properties. The possibilities were endless, we could use this as a way to study what glucose does in cellular models of diabetes. The data I was collecting was filling me with excitement as I pondered about the significance of this molecule. However, I eventually realised that what I was seeing wasn’t even the molecule I was researching, but other molecules inside the cell that can fluoresce without using a molecule to target them. It turns out, the vehicle I was using to deliver this molecule inside the cell was disrupting its basic functions and causing the fluorescence, not the molecule itself. It’s safe to say that I was bitterly disappointed. However, I have learned to adapt and have now changed my methodology and I now see the bigger picture behind it all
This story leads to my next point. I’m sure most of you know of Alzheimer’s, maybe even know of someone who suffers from it. What some of you might not know is the theory behind the disease progression. That is, the accumulation of a certain protein in the brain called beta-amyloid, which ultimately leads to cognitive decline in patients. This theory has dominated the research behind Alzheimer’s for years and millions of dollars have gone into funding research into this theory, much more than the funding received by researchers with other theories. However, this year it was revealed that a major study that was behind this theory had a number of misconducts including data manipulation to fit the story. You may ask, how is it possible that it took researchers this long to figure it out? The short answer is that this is what can happen when dealing with invisible matter. Since we can’t directly see this type of phenomena, it is easy to get caught up in a theory in which all the technology used in the research are directed into one aspect of a disease. It’s difficult to see the bigger picture without focusing on other theories and disease characteristics.
My final point of this entry is this: have any of you ever met a conspiracy theorist? After the last 2-3 years, you most likely have. When confronted with the kinds of statements they make, what is your first thought? Maybe it’s why would all the scientists lie? It benefits no one and would be near impossible to keep the truth hidden from the world for long. Well, maybe the first studies were also filled with misconduct and the other scientists blindly followed, not knowing that what they are seeing doesn’t actually exist. Maybe they can’t see the bigger picture.
Edit: Since the writing of this article, recent news has unveiled the death of an Alzheimer’s patient in a clinical trial researching the efficacy of an experimental drug who suffered a stroke thought to be caused by the treatment. It is the second death suspected to be caused by Lecanemab, a monoclonal antibody which targets the amyloid plaques.
