3 ms·

Indeed, I neglected to mention the other main motivator for undertaking research: to be published in journals. Thanks for pointing it out. Seriously though, ca

Indeed, I neglected to mention the other main motivator for undertaking research: to be published in journals. Thanks for pointing it out. Seriously though, can you not see how the medical research system (and most importantly, the kinds of things that will be included in studies) is influenced by the fact that any study must seek to deliver on a commercial incentive, a political one, or at the very least, be likely to published in a reputable journal [1]? [1] Incidentally, this is also, indirectly, a commercial incentive, given that journal publications are used as a key metric for ranking research universities internationally, which has a major bearing on funding.

nradov 9y ago
If the research isn't worth publishing in a reputable journal then it probably isn't worth doing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
- tomhoward 9y ago
  The point is that this qualifier - that research must be "worth publishing in a reputable journal" - imposes significant constraints on what kind of research may be attempted to begin with. An hypothesis that is too far outside of mainstream accepted thinking may not be studied, if it seems (to the people proposing the study or the people considering funding it) like it will be too hard to get it through peer review or editorial review. I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a flaw in the system; it is healthy that there are constraints on what kind of research gets funded, and for things that are way outside of established thinking, the bar should be higher [1]. But it does mean there will inevitably be a gap - quite possibly a very big gap - between what has been "proved to work" and what can be effective for those who want or need (like myself) to take matters into their own hands. [1] Problems like politicisation, egotism and bullying are often said to be rife in scientific research institutions, so it's questionable whether the system is as healthy as it could be, but that's a separate discussion.
- Mz 9y ago
  Hand wavy recollection of what a very knowledgeable cancer patient told me years ago: They were incredibly frustrated that most cancer research related to the type of cancer they had was variations on the same thing because it was the trendy thing to fund. This person was hoping for real progress, but was seeing just dozens of studies of the same thing with minor variations and nothing actually interesting or really new being done.
  - nradov 9y ago
    That could just as well be confusing cause and effect. Particular avenues of research can capture a lot of funding and become trendy because they seem most promising at the time. Hard decisions also have to be made on risk versus reward; should we shoot for the moon or target limited incremental progress? It's easy to criticize after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
    - Mz 9y ago
      The individual in question worked for a major health organization themselves. I don't think they were confusing anything.

nradov 9y ago

If the research isn't worth publishing in a reputable journal then it probably isn't worth doing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

tomhoward 9y ago
The point is that this qualifier - that research must be "worth publishing in a reputable journal" - imposes significant constraints on what kind of research may be attempted to begin with. An hypothesis that is too far outside of mainstream accepted thinking may not be studied, if it seems (to the people proposing the study or the people considering funding it) like it will be too hard to get it through peer review or editorial review. I'm not suggesting this is necessarily a flaw in the system; it is healthy that there are constraints on what kind of research gets funded, and for things that are way outside of established thinking, the bar should be higher [1]. But it does mean there will inevitably be a gap - quite possibly a very big gap - between what has been "proved to work" and what can be effective for those who want or need (like myself) to take matters into their own hands. [1] Problems like politicisation, egotism and bullying are often said to be rife in scientific research institutions, so it's questionable whether the system is as healthy as it could be, but that's a separate discussion.
Mz 9y ago
Hand wavy recollection of what a very knowledgeable cancer patient told me years ago: They were incredibly frustrated that most cancer research related to the type of cancer they had was variations on the same thing because it was the trendy thing to fund. This person was hoping for real progress, but was seeing just dozens of studies of the same thing with minor variations and nothing actually interesting or really new being done.
- nradov 9y ago
  That could just as well be confusing cause and effect. Particular avenues of research can capture a lot of funding and become trendy because they seem most promising at the time. Hard decisions also have to be made on risk versus reward; should we shoot for the moon or target limited incremental progress? It's easy to criticize after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.
  - Mz 9y ago
    The individual in question worked for a major health organization themselves. I don't think they were confusing anything.