3 ms·
I did read the article. I didn't see that it was peer reviewed nor a repeated study, scientifically speaking. The last few paragraphs also give some (typical) s
by chippy 9y ago
I did read the article. I didn't see that it was peer reviewed nor a repeated study, scientifically speaking. The last few paragraphs also give some (typical) scientific distance on the rhetoric that it will revolutionise ALL past rat experiments. It's still worth a read though.
What I found:
* It is a science story about findings presented at a meeting. The story is published in Nature, which does do very prestigious peer reviewed papers, but the findings and the story itself are not peer reviewed.
* Within the same institution, the head of the lab repeated the experiment.
* Some other actually peer reviewed papers with female researchers, rats and ketamine show positive influences.
- timthelion 9y agoI don't think that peer review is a very good metric in this case. Those peers could lose their jobs if rodent research is proven to be unscientific. Requiring research on the scientific merits of rodent research to be peer reviewed is like asking the plumber's union to write the building code. In many American municipalities, the code really is written by the plumbers, and the plumbers write in that water pipes must be copper, just because copper cannot be installed by a non-professional. I don't see why rodent researchers would not do the same type of corrupt and anti-truth tactic for their own professional protection.
- ensignavenger 9y ago"copper cannot be installed by a non-professional" Who says? I get your over all point, but I disagree that only "professionals" can install copper pipes. It really isn't that difficult.
- timthelion 9y agoWell, it is certainly a lot harder to do than plastic, and of course, pex is like k-nex compared to welded copper.