3 ms·

Has anyone noticed how quickly a new research direction gets connected to all the big diseases? It has only been a few years since microbiome research really be

by nonbel 10y ago

Has anyone noticed how quickly a new research direction gets connected to all the big diseases? It has only been a few years since microbiome research really became a thing. It is disconcertingly fad-like. From pubmed: pubmed - human microbiome year count 2017 27 2016 5464 2015 5544 2014 4283 2013 2993 2012 2064 2011 1405 2010 910 2009 679 2008 520 2007 392 2006 290 2005 245 2004 160 2003 135 2002 118 2001 74 2000 78 1999 57 1998 57 1997 54 1996 35 1995 30 1994 17 1993 18 1992 23 1991 24 1990 24 1989 25 1988 27 1987 14 1986 11 1985 20 1984 10 1983 10 1982 8 1981 9 1980 10 1979 13 1978 11 1977 7 1976 10 1975 3 1974 2 1972 1 1971 3 1970 2 1969 2 1968 2 1967 2 1966 3 1965 2 1964 2 1963 3 1961 2 1958 1 1956 1

Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
I know nothing about microbiome research. However, I don't think "fad-like" is a logical conclusion just because the amount of research is continuing to increase. This just seems more like typical human advancement and dissemination of knowledge. For instance, I'm sure you'd find a similar trend with "computer", "solar energy" and "global warming". Someone discovers something and it takes a while for everyone to catch on. However, if the concept has legs, more and more research will take place until we understand the concept enough for it to become a part of every day life.
- nonbel 10y ago
  >"I don't think "fad-like" is a logical conclusion just because the amount of research is continuing to increase. This just seems more like typical human advancement and dissemination of knowledge." I mean that the direction things are going it will eventually be discovered that "everything is correlated with everything else"... in hundreds of years. Why not just assume that to begin with? Take it as a first principle. Instead what we care about is measuring the quantitative relationships (what functional form, etc) between various factors. Also, I just now looked at the paper. I cannot believe neuroscientists are still getting away with this. There is not a single scatter plot. Let's look at the highlights: - Gut microbes promote a-synuclein-mediated motor deficits and brain pathology - Depletion of gut bacteria reduces microglia activation - SCFAs modulate microglia and enhance PD pathophysiology - Human gut microbiota from PD patients induce enhanced motor dysfunction in mice So I expect to see scatter plots of: "# of gut microbes" (or "% pathogenic microbes") vs "motor deficits" "a-synuclein levels" vs "motor deficits" "# of Gut microbes" (or "% pathogenic microbes") vs "brain pathology" "a-synuclein levels" vs "brain pathology" "Gut bacteria levels" vs "microglia activation" "SCFA levels" vs "microglia activity" "SCFA levels" vs "PD pathophysiology" "# of human PD microbes" (or "% human PD microbes") vs "motor dysfunction" You can see the entire project was designed around seeing if there is a correlation, which we should already assume is true. Instead we should be looking at those scatter plots, so we can achieve the useful goal of discerning the relationship between various biological phenomena.
sushid 10y ago
I don't think it's a fad, but a new causal link that's helping us understand the root cause of various ailments better. We've found a new root cause and that's very important. What you're saying is akin to someone in the 19th century saying that the new germ theory "fad" is being applied as the root cause to various diseases/deaths.
- nonbel 10y ago
  >"We've found a new root cause and that's very important." The problem is the next big thing to get a bunch of funding will also be a "root cause", and the next, and the next... Also, they will all be 100% correct in saying this medley of factors is related to parkinsons/cancer/etc. The trouble is, identifying "root causes" isn't what this research should be focused on. I explained more in my later post in this thread.

by nonbel 10y ago

Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago

I know nothing about microbiome research. However, I don't think "fad-like" is a logical conclusion just because the amount of research is continuing to increase. This just seems more like typical human advancement and dissemination of knowledge. For instance, I'm sure you'd find a similar trend with "computer", "solar energy" and "global warming". Someone discovers something and it takes a while for everyone to catch on. However, if the concept has legs, more and more research will take place until we understand the concept enough for it to become a part of every day life.

nonbel 10y ago
>"I don't think "fad-like" is a logical conclusion just because the amount of research is continuing to increase. This just seems more like typical human advancement and dissemination of knowledge." I mean that the direction things are going it will eventually be discovered that "everything is correlated with everything else"... in hundreds of years. Why not just assume that to begin with? Take it as a first principle. Instead what we care about is measuring the quantitative relationships (what functional form, etc) between various factors. Also, I just now looked at the paper. I cannot believe neuroscientists are still getting away with this. There is not a single scatter plot. Let's look at the highlights: - Gut microbes promote a-synuclein-mediated motor deficits and brain pathology - Depletion of gut bacteria reduces microglia activation - SCFAs modulate microglia and enhance PD pathophysiology - Human gut microbiota from PD patients induce enhanced motor dysfunction in mice So I expect to see scatter plots of: "# of gut microbes" (or "% pathogenic microbes") vs "motor deficits" "a-synuclein levels" vs "motor deficits" "# of Gut microbes" (or "% pathogenic microbes") vs "brain pathology" "a-synuclein levels" vs "brain pathology" "Gut bacteria levels" vs "microglia activation" "SCFA levels" vs "microglia activity" "SCFA levels" vs "PD pathophysiology" "# of human PD microbes" (or "% human PD microbes") vs "motor dysfunction" You can see the entire project was designed around seeing if there is a correlation, which we should already assume is true. Instead we should be looking at those scatter plots, so we can achieve the useful goal of discerning the relationship between various biological phenomena.

sushid 10y ago

I don't think it's a fad, but a new causal link that's helping us understand the root cause of various ailments better. We've found a new root cause and that's very important. What you're saying is akin to someone in the 19th century saying that the new germ theory "fad" is being applied as the root cause to various diseases/deaths.

nonbel 10y ago
>"We've found a new root cause and that's very important." The problem is the next big thing to get a bunch of funding will also be a "root cause", and the next, and the next... Also, they will all be 100% correct in saying this medley of factors is related to parkinsons/cancer/etc. The trouble is, identifying "root causes" isn't what this research should be focused on. I explained more in my later post in this thread.