No he didn't. I work very closely with a number of Alzheimers groups, and I can tell you with a certainty the disease has not been 'cured' in any model. If your father works on some sort of AB plaque clearance or has shown reversal of symptoms, then hooray, he's part in a long line of groups that has shown the same. The people down the hall from me have done so via a drug treatment, an antibody titration, and with an adenoviral vector.
In which organ of the body do you think Alzheimer's originates?
I'm pretty confident in saying your dads work in the early days of sequencing 'one of the most import vectors' is not cited anymore - 'science moving on' and all, though it's neat he was part of history.
I'll give you a further hint, the Wikipedia pages for Vector (molecular biology) and Cloning Vector display images of the plasmid that my father successfully sequenced entirely by himself in the late 1970s.
You're also hilariously overblowing his 'accomplishments' - there's no 'vector of vectors' that's been in constant use since the 70's, indeed, the 'sequence' of vectors is hardly consistent over an even 5 year span. I've published three large papers in the last two years in top tier journals - the oldest citation we used was from the late 90's. The bolded sentence makes me think you don't understand how molecular biology works, or that you're just making this all up as a freshman biology major.
That must be why Wikipedia still has images of the plasmid that he sequenced on the main pages discussing cloning vectors.
Hahaha, yes, anthropology is the most ideologically biased science. Very rich. I suppose you're in the camp of calling it not a science, like the rest of your CT ilk?
It's not the science that molecular biology is, that's for sure. I take the conclusions of anthropologists with a grain of salt. When they incorporate honest genetic analyses into their research I take note. When they mentally masturbate about cultural relativism my gag reflex is triggered.
Since you brought up E.O Wilson, I suggest you read this. He was not a fan of Watson, as a man, or as a scientist. I understand you're a fan of Watson, but his bigoted claims have nothing to do with his skills as a molecular biologist.
I'm a bigger fan of Watson than I am of Wilson, and I think Molecular Biology deserves to be higher on the totem pole than organismic biology.
What would it take for you to even begin to consider that there could be racial differences in IQ? You have already stated that you discard any analysis by Rushton and Jensen as a matter of course. You don't like Khan or Malloy on principle. Are you willing to admit that you might be motivated by bias when it comes to this issue?
What do you think about Larry Summers claims about the differences between men and women in the STEM fields? I'm assuming you are a woman.