Like a couple of my other classmates have mentioned in their respective posts, this article was also very difficult for me to understand and process, because the knowledge and lingo used in the text is something I am very unfamiliar with.
From what I could gather, however, it seems that though there have been multiple studies done and hypotheses created based on the prion, it still remains a controversial (and mysterious) topic today. Scientists originally assumed that the “infectious agent” that brought about prion diseases belonged to a group of viruses–specifically, the “slow virus.” Despite this popular theory, findings in 1967 disputed this theory because Pattison figured out these infectious agents resisted heat and formaldehyde,which are two popular treatments that supposedly “inactivate most viruses.” After this initial disagreement with the virus theory, more research was put into this strange topic and today, different theories have formed.
The popular “protein-only” hypothesis that claims that prions are a change from a normal isoform of a prior protein to one that resists in a pathogenic form was tested using mice that were genetically resistant to prion inoculation and could not replicate the infectious agent. This testing led to the conclusion that the disease could be transmitted through intracerebral inoculation of brain homogenates. Though these testings promotd the “protein-only” hypothesis, scientists still argued that definite proof could only be retrieved by producing in vitro infectious material utilized for intracerebral inoculation beginning from a pure normal one.
Today, the hypothesis is still in questioning, and scientists have conjured up particular weaknesses that are further attacking the hypothesis but also opening up this specific field of research as well. In regards to the case study we did in class, however, it seems that different perspectives from different fields truly affect the hypothesis from becoming one definite theory, but hopefully, a new field of research dedicated to the study of these prions will open up and create a pathway for one definite answer.
I agree with your point that the review article was a tough one to comprehend – although significantly shorter than the Nobel lecture, the piece was still difficult to digest. It is clearly a piece intended for those in the field – I wonder how it would be different if it were written for the general public. Most of what I was able to follow was at the beginning or the end; I wish that there was a piece written in standard English. Similar to your conclusion, what I got out of this piece and the case study was that in order to come to a definite theory, scholars from different fields need to collaborate.