SORL1 and Alzheimer's Disease

Right from the start the article “New Gene Uncovered For Late-onset Alzheimer's; Findings Replicated In Four Different Ethnic Groups” published Jan. 15, 2007 on Science Daily does a good job of not making any ridiculous claims such as “Gene Causing Alzheimer’s Disease Discovered.”  Instead, they point out nuanced distinctions such as the results of the study indicate that the relationship observed only applies late onset Alzheimer’s Disease (AD).  The article talks briefly about the proposed function of sortilin-related receptor (SORL1), its interactions with amyloid precursor protein (APP) and this may effect AD but this discussion is quite brief and likely not going to be completely understood by someone without a science background, but obviously overly simplistic for someone working in the field.  Instead, the article swiftly transitions into details about subjects used in the study and direct quotes from the study authors explaining the significance of the study.  I find this to be an effective format because it allows the experts to explain the take home message from the study as opposed to a journalist trying to figure it out and potentially getting it wrong. 

Science Daily does an above average job of describing the experimental logic to the reader.  As was stated by Kua et. al., readers think of science as this linear process instead of the circular process that in reality it often becomes.  While it may be difficult in this short of an article to fully capture the elegance of an experiment, this popular press article does a more than cursory investigation of the scientific process including evaluating a priori hypotheses and how this guided the experiment.  This is important because while the conclusions drawn from an experiment are important, often the methods used are more valuable for future application in science.  This introductory explication of methods in the popular press helps debunk the notion that “…science is a collection of facts that scientists spot and that journalists convey to the public…”(Rowan, 1999 in Kua et. al., 2004).

When explaining the findings of the scientific study, the Science Daily article properly mentions one of the key design elements of the study that improves the robustness; namely, the fact that the study examined four different ethnic groups to solidify the conclusion.  This evidence further shows that the role SORL1 plays in AD supports the belief that the link between gene and disease is not simply due to some secondary or tertiary connection but is more likely due to a primary role in disease etiology.  Furthermore, describing the immense efforts of the scientists (the study involved 6,000 patients) helps convey to the public the amount of work and evidence that went into making the claims that the scientists make.

One pitfall that this article avoids is simply becoming a review of what Alzheimer’s Disease is and whom it affects.  If that were the focus of this article it would do a disservice to is explicit purpose of describing the discovery of a link between a gene (SORL1) and a disease (Alzheimer’s Disease).  Practically the only distinction made about AD in this article is between early and late onset AD.  However, this is important to note because the findings in the scientific article are only applicable to late onset AD, so informing readers about the difference is within the scope.  Overall, this article does an adequate job of performing the three tasks of a science reporter proposed by Kua et. al., being an “intermediary, a watchdog, and a tool-giver.”