For years now, Alzheimer's disease (AD) research has been stuck in a Groundhog-Day scenario: an endless time loop with no breakthrough in sight. Disagreement about the validity of the field's dominant approach, based on the Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis, has led to a seemingly unresolvable trench war between proponents and critics. Our paper evaluates the recent scientific literature on AD from a historical and philosophical perspective. We show that AD research is a classic example of the boundary work at play in a field in crisis: both parties deploy historical and philosophical references to illustrate what counts as good and bad science, as proper scientific method and appropriate scientific conduct. We also show that boundary work has proved unable to point a way out of the deadlock and argue that the science system's tools for establishing scientific quality, such as peer review and the grant system, are unlikely to resolve the crisis. Rather, they consolidate the dominant model's position even more. In conclusion, we suggest that some kind of reverse boundary-work is needed that reopens the discussion on the nature of AD, an issue that has never been settled scientifically. Drawing on historical and philosophical work, we make clear that the definition of AD as a biomedical disease for which a cure can be found has consequences, not only for funding opportunities, but also for patients and their lives. A reconsideration of the desirability of these consequences may lead to different choices with respect to research priorities and patient care.
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Amyloid Cascade Hypothesis; boundary work; history and philosophy of science; science system.