Successful therapies for Alzheimer's disease: why so many in animal models and none in humans?

Peering into the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD), the outsider realizes that many of the therapeutic strategies tested (in animal models) have been successful. One also may notice that there is a deficit in translational research, i.e., to take a successful drug in mice and translate it to the patient. Efforts are still focused on novel projects to expand the therapeutic arsenal to 'cure mice.' Scientific reasons behind so many successful strategies are not obvious. This article aims to review the current approaches to combat AD and to open a debate on common mechanisms of cognitive enhancement and neuroprotection. In short, either the rodent models are not good and should be discontinued, or we should extract the most useful information from those models. An example of a question that may be debated for the advancement in AD therapy is: In addition to reducing amyloid and tau pathologies, would it be necessary to boost synaptic strength and cognition? The debate could provide clues to turn around the current negative output in generating effective drugs for patients. Furthermore, discovery of biomarkers in human body fluids, and a clear distinction between cognitive enhancers and disease modifying strategies, should be instrumental for advancing in anti-AD drug discovery.

One, two, or many mechanisms? The brain's processing of complex words

The heated debate over whether there is only a single mechanism or two mechanisms for morphology has diverted valuable research energy away from the more critical questions about the neural computations involved in the comprehension and production of morphologically complex forms. Cognitive neuroscience data implicate many brain areas. All extant models, whether they rely on a connectionist network or espouse two mechanisms, are too underspecified to explain why more than a few brain areas differ in their activity during the processing of regular and irregular forms. No one doubts that the brain treats regular and irregular words differently, but brain data indicate that a simplistic account will not do. It is time for us to search for the critical factors free from theoretical blinders.