I’m not going to sugar-coat it, because Dr. Mark A. Smith never would.
He was a no-BS guy.
When he died in a hit-and-run accident just before Christmas, the Alzheimer’s research world lost one of its most outspoken leaders – the author of more than 800 scientific papers, most of which challenged mainstream thought about the disease.
|  Photo credit: Renjith Krishnan
Dr. Mark A. Smith spent his life looking for the answers only science can provide.
|
The accident that claimed his life happened around 2 a.m. on Dec 19. Dr. Smith – professor of pathology at Case Western University and the director of basic science research at its Memory and Cognition Center – was walking home from a local bar. Another man, driving home from the same bar, struck Dr. Smith, apparently killing him on impact, according to a police report quoted in the Chagrin Solon Sun, a local newspaper.
The driver, Daniel V. Neesham, didn’t stop. Instead he drove home. Ironically, he apparently died in his house soon after. A preliminary coroner’s report suggested that he might have died from a drug overdose, but the final results may not be known for months, Solon Sun reporter Joan Rusek told me.
When we put questions about his death aside, when we put the tragedy aside, when we put aside sympathy and sadness – what remains of Mark A. Smith?
Science.
In 2005, when I started to report on the snowballing of antiamyloid drugs, Dr. Smith was one of a tiny handful of researchers who weren’t jumping on the amyloid bandwagon. “There are a few of us who don’t worship at the Church of the Holy Amyloid,” he said in an interview that year. “There is a thought that amyloid plaques are a response to the disease, rather than the cause of the disease, and that they could even be performing some kind of protective function. It’s certainly less sexy theory, but it’s out there.” He was always good for a quote – some witty, some funny, and some perhaps not entirely suited for publication.
As enthusiasm for antiamyloid drugs gathered steam, he stuck to his scientific guns, continually pointing out studies hinting that beta amyloid might not be the be-all and end-all of Alzheimer’s. His own research suggested that getting rid of amyloid plaques might even do more harm than good – a theory that may have played into the failure of an experimental immunotherapy. Testing stopped abruptly in 2002, when about 6% of those receiving it developed encephalitis, despite later autopsies that clearly showed decreasing amyloid load.
Swimming upstream won Dr. Smith his controversial reputation – something he took not only with good grace, but a certain amount of pride. Last summer, Forbes reporter Robert Langreth called him a “renegade” over his stance that antiamyloids could actually harm patients.