Charles Piller

So my book talks about challenging the poor performance, what I would call the poor performance, of many of the institutional authorities of science in our country. And when I say the institutional authorities of science, I mean the

So my book talks about challenging the poor performance, what I would call the poor performance, of many of the institutional authorities of science in our country. And when I say the institutional authorities of science, I mean the

The journals, like including the one I work for, Science, the universities who are gatekeepers of important knowledge in the world, the National Institutes of Health, which is the primary funder of biomedical and medical research in the country, and so very, very important for ensuring the quality of that work and that thinking.

The journals, like including the one I work for, Science, the universities who are gatekeepers of important knowledge in the world, the National Institutes of Health, which is the primary funder of biomedical and medical research in the country, and so very, very important for ensuring the quality of that work and that thinking.

and the Food and Drug Administration, which is the entity that approves and sometimes disapproves new drugs for remedies or other kinds of remedies that people really are desiring for important diseases. So I think all four of those institutions, the journals, the universities, the funder, and the regulator have really made a lot of mistakes and have had grave weaknesses in their behavior

and the Food and Drug Administration, which is the entity that approves and sometimes disapproves new drugs for remedies or other kinds of remedies that people really are desiring for important diseases. So I think all four of those institutions, the journals, the universities, the funder, and the regulator have really made a lot of mistakes and have had grave weaknesses in their behavior

That has led to a lot of the problems of misconduct associated with the work that I've done for my book that relates to Alzheimer's disease and the deleterious effects on scientific thinking and on the development of remedies in that field.

That has led to a lot of the problems of misconduct associated with the work that I've done for my book that relates to Alzheimer's disease and the deleterious effects on scientific thinking and on the development of remedies in that field.

because my book is so critical of them, and because there are real problems in the field of Alzheimer's disease, I think that it can be possible to mistake that kind of criticism for a general condemnation of those organizations. I believe that the journals, the universities,

because my book is so critical of them, and because there are real problems in the field of Alzheimer's disease, I think that it can be possible to mistake that kind of criticism for a general condemnation of those organizations. I believe that the journals, the universities,

the funder, NIH, and the regulator, FDA, we are extremely fortunate in our country to have these entities who are so incredibly effective in so many ways, delivering new knowledge, helping certify the benefits of certain drugs and keeping others that may be suspect out of the approval process. Those are things that we should honor and appreciate. It doesn't mean they're perfect.

the funder, NIH, and the regulator, FDA, we are extremely fortunate in our country to have these entities who are so incredibly effective in so many ways, delivering new knowledge, helping certify the benefits of certain drugs and keeping others that may be suspect out of the approval process. Those are things that we should honor and appreciate. It doesn't mean they're perfect.

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect them to up their game when they are doing things that are not beneficial, that are complacent, that allow improper behavior. or inadequate research to somehow gain ascendancy in a field in a way that is based at times even to some degree on fraud or misconduct. So I've been very critical of them. But there have been a couple of occasions where RFK Jr.

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't expect them to up their game when they are doing things that are not beneficial, that are complacent, that allow improper behavior. or inadequate research to somehow gain ascendancy in a field in a way that is based at times even to some degree on fraud or misconduct. So I've been very critical of them. But there have been a couple of occasions where RFK Jr.

and Jay Bhattacharya, who is the new National Institutes of Health director, where they have referred to my reporting as a way of describing how critical they are of the research realm, particularly in Alzheimer's research. And it's an awkward position for me for this reason. I believe that they're right to challenge some of that research, to call out some of the problems in it. And

and Jay Bhattacharya, who is the new National Institutes of Health director, where they have referred to my reporting as a way of describing how critical they are of the research realm, particularly in Alzheimer's research. And it's an awkward position for me for this reason. I believe that they're right to challenge some of that research, to call out some of the problems in it. And

I wouldn't have written about it if I didn't believe it was important. Of course, I think it's important and I appreciate their interest in it. What I do not appreciate is the slash and burn approach to removing huge portions of Alzheimer's research and other forms of research from the NIH. and from the capacity of FDA to evaluate new drugs.

I wouldn't have written about it if I didn't believe it was important. Of course, I think it's important and I appreciate their interest in it. What I do not appreciate is the slash and burn approach to removing huge portions of Alzheimer's research and other forms of research from the NIH. and from the capacity of FDA to evaluate new drugs.

For all their flaws, these agencies have done generally a very good job in many ways. Even though I'm very critical of them, I want to see them strengthened and not greatly and radically reduced.

For all their flaws, these agencies have done generally a very good job in many ways. Even though I'm very critical of them, I want to see them strengthened and not greatly and radically reduced.