5 ms·

Well, I didn't study senescence but actually did do something similar. It required training myself in math, programming, history of the topic, and stats in add

by nonbel 8y ago

Well, I didn't study senescence but actually did do something similar. It required training myself in math, programming, history of the topic, and stats in addition to the normal grad school stuff (memorizing stuff for classes, data collection, etc) which amounted to about 3 years of working almost nonstop. Turns out nobody cared, all they wanted to know is if there was a significant difference between groups. My attempt caused me health, financial, and social problems for literally an anti-reward so I would not recommend anyone try it. I also don't believe anyone would get a nobel prize for that in the current environment, they would be ignored or fought against because some holy cows would need to be sacrificed. EDIT: As a more concrete example. Look at the pushback against Tomasetti & Vogelstein for daring to point out that there is a base rate of mutations per cell division and accumulated mutations lead to cancer, so cancers arise more often in tissues with more divisions. This is almost common sense, but people cannot handle it for some reason: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/no-cancer-isnt-mostly-bad-luck/521049/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/no-cance...

toopsss 8y ago
Yes there are some idiots that dismissed the tomasetti and vogelsteinn paper due to it conflicting with their worldview, but they only got momentum because the original paper really was crap from even a critical scientific POV. What’s very ironic is that the problems with the paper seem to be the same things you’re bitching about in your post. No one smart is criticizing the paper for the “common sense” part, but because they actually tried to quantify it and their method was quite flawed.
- nonbel 8y ago
  What were the problems in that paper? The good stuff is that they were able to come up with estimates for stem cell divisions and were able to see a correlation with the cancer risk. The bad stuff was the usual misinterpreting correlation coefficients and p-values (this is standard, found in pretty much every paper) and that the data is messy/incomplete. I mean, sure more people should be working on figuring out the number of stem cell divisions by tissue and other nations should collect data of the same quality as SEER... If it was just another standard "smoking/sunlight/etc causes cancer" paper with the same issues there would not have been this response. It even says so in the atlantic, people think this information undermines their public health campaigns: >'The paper triggered a hailstorm of criticism. Some scientists chastised the methods. Why did they ignore common cancers like breast and prostate? Why did they only focus on the U.S.? Others accused the duo of undermining public health. Many personal choices, from quitting smoking to staying lean, can dramatically reduce one’s risk of cancers, but why would you bother if you read headlines saying that these diseases are “largely down to bad luck?”' https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/no-cancer-isnt-mostly-bad-luck/521049/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/no-cance...
i000 8y ago
I would suggest you do not use your personal failures and frustrations as justification to call other researchers work a waste of time. Please go ahead and explain to us how their contribution to science is a waste of time and money (you could for example contrast it with your own accomplishments).
- nonbel 8y ago
  There is nothing complicated about this problem: Discovering that an aspect of human cells/tissue plays a role in any aspect of human health is a waste of time because we already know this is true to begin with. Nothing has been learned. Now I am sure there is some other info in these papers that may be useful about how the nucleolus changes with age, etc but, like the OP noted, the headlines are all about "playing a role".
ackfoo 8y ago
Excellent answer to a sarcastic troll. The best and brightest are obviously not going into science, and those who do must learn to play the idiotic game for survival.
JPLeRouzic 8y ago
Nonbel, please do you have some pointer to your research?
- nonbel 8y ago
  Sorry but I specifically don't give examples using my former research in this light because these problems are very general. I don't want to seem like I place any blame on a specific organization, program, or person (nor contribute to anyone else doing so).

by nonbel 8y ago

toopsss 8y ago

Yes there are some idiots that dismissed the tomasetti and vogelsteinn paper due to it conflicting with their worldview, but they only got momentum because the original paper really was crap from even a critical scientific POV. What’s very ironic is that the problems with the paper seem to be the same things you’re bitching about in your post. No one smart is criticizing the paper for the “common sense” part, but because they actually tried to quantify it and their method was quite flawed.

nonbel 8y ago
What were the problems in that paper? The good stuff is that they were able to come up with estimates for stem cell divisions and were able to see a correlation with the cancer risk. The bad stuff was the usual misinterpreting correlation coefficients and p-values (this is standard, found in pretty much every paper) and that the data is messy/incomplete. I mean, sure more people should be working on figuring out the number of stem cell divisions by tissue and other nations should collect data of the same quality as SEER... If it was just another standard "smoking/sunlight/etc causes cancer" paper with the same issues there would not have been this response. It even says so in the atlantic, people think this information undermines their public health campaigns: >'The paper triggered a hailstorm of criticism. Some scientists chastised the methods. Why did they ignore common cancers like breast and prostate? Why did they only focus on the U.S.? Others accused the duo of undermining public health. Many personal choices, from quitting smoking to staying lean, can dramatically reduce one’s risk of cancers, but why would you bother if you read headlines saying that these diseases are “largely down to bad luck?”' https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/no-cancer-isnt-mostly-bad-luck/521049/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/no-cance...

i000 8y ago

I would suggest you do not use your personal failures and frustrations as justification to call other researchers work a waste of time. Please go ahead and explain to us how their contribution to science is a waste of time and money (you could for example contrast it with your own accomplishments).

nonbel 8y ago
There is nothing complicated about this problem: Discovering that an aspect of human cells/tissue plays a role in any aspect of human health is a waste of time because we already know this is true to begin with. Nothing has been learned. Now I am sure there is some other info in these papers that may be useful about how the nucleolus changes with age, etc but, like the OP noted, the headlines are all about "playing a role".

ackfoo 8y ago

Excellent answer to a sarcastic troll. The best and brightest are obviously not going into science, and those who do must learn to play the idiotic game for survival.

JPLeRouzic 8y ago

Nonbel, please do you have some pointer to your research?

nonbel 8y ago
Sorry but I specifically don't give examples using my former research in this light because these problems are very general. I don't want to seem like I place any blame on a specific organization, program, or person (nor contribute to anyone else doing so).