My experience with PhDs is that they are very territorial, narrow minded and narcissistic.
Once they propound a theory that’s it and they’re not likely to change. This has gotten worse as government funding has politicized the process.
I’d put your ideas down on paper, organize them and expand them. Do some research to find additional data.
Realize that your theorem covers several scientific realms. Brain study, biology, aging, population and environment, and anthropology specifically in the realm of tribes (familial). So your research would cross into each of the preceding areas (& possibly more) and you’d glean insights by contacting experts or reading papers that discuss those aspects pertinent to your theory.
What exactly is your theory? “Alzheimer’s is a natural biological response in humans to limited food resources and declining utility of the elderly to support the tribe”?
Here’s the scientific method:
1. Observation - you’ve done this
2. Research - how much have you done?
3. Hypothesis - you have one, but can you state what it is specifically?
4. Testing - what proofs would you need to support your hypothesis and what would refute it? (you’ve got to consider both sides to make a good test)
5. Findings - report your findings or alter your hypothesis
I’d tighten up your hypothesis and then start testing. You’re at the right place to do it.
If you set up a paper, publish it to the web and copyright it, then post it here on FR and invite commentary. The “peer” review process can be harsh, but don’t take it personally. It is to your benefit and to the benefit of your theory.
What do you think?
I want to thank you for your detailed responses to this idea. Although I did study biological sciences, and worked as a lab tech in medical schools and at NIH, I did many years of other things. So now at 72 it feels a little unreal to think I could actually do something significant with this, so the encouragement is much appreciated. Now I will answer the specific points you raised. This will also help clarify my thinking.
First of all my theory is that there is at least a partial genetic basis for Alzheimers. Scientists have discovered some genes which they believe correlate with the occurance of Alzheimers (like they now identify breast cancer genes). My hypothesis is that, based on the detailed observation and care of my husband, such a gene may cause wandering bahavior that would benefit surviving blood relatives because there would be more available food, especially in winter or drought conditions. Thus the offspring bearing this gene would tend to pass it on and on. This behavior seemed to occur at a time when mobility and potential usefulness was coming to an end, but before real helplessness set in. This would be an optimum time in a primative setting for the person to cause their own death.
Secondly, in the realm of sociology, I have found that it is possible to set up conditions that make it possible for someone with Alzheimers to be a contributing member of the “tribe” past the time I have heard/read that most believe it is possible or practical. When my husband first became “difficult” and I looked into an insitutional placement, I was told it was over $50,000 a year and could go on for as much as 10 years. I ended up caring for him with minimal help and he died at home. Only the last 6 months was physically very hard as his body began to deteriorate rather rapidly. Fortunately, I was ten years younger, in good health, and physically strong.
1) I have made a great many other observations besides the ones I have mentioned here and have already written a lot of them down.
2) The additional research I have done was to look at aging research data from long settled relative urbanized areas in India and West Africa, and black people in Cleveland. I should do a lot more of this. Also, I would need to talk with others who have cared for Alz. people, especially in a family (tribal) setting to see if their observations tend to confirm mine.
3) I have outlined my hypotheses above. Need to think more about this whole issue.
4) Testing would involve much larger studies that I am not in a position to do. However, if I could interest professionals, I could certainly suggest some practical parameters for conducting some aspects. This might include genetic testing, familial observations and record keeping, more detailed studies on aging in homogenious populations from long settled well populated areas vs. the same on thin widely scattered populations like Laplander, Inuit, Kalahari Bushmen, etc.
5) Reporting findings could occur in several ways. I have already thought of writing something for the AARP magazine about my experience caring for my husband, including my observations and theory generated by caring for him. If not AARP, some other popular journal or blog dealing with aging, Alzheimers and dying. Where that might lead, who knows?
Regarding posting on FR, I wish they would not call original contributions “vanities”. Certainly some of the posts are, but I would call others “original observations” or “original writing”. At any rate, thank you again for your suggestions, and any others you may be inspired to add. Last thought re PhDs. BS = Bull Sxxx, MS = More of Same, PhD = Piled higher and Deeper. ;-)