4 ms·

Here is a direct link to the study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38885349/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38885349/

by gls2ro 2y ago

bell-cot 2y ago
Which contains this gem: > Conflict of interest statement > R. Shanmugam reports a patent for Specific inhibition of telomerase activity in colorectal cancer pending. J.-L. Low reports grants from National Research Foundation, Singapore, during the conduct of the study. I.B. Tan reports grants and personal fees from MSD and Roche, personal fees from BMS, AstraZeneca, and Merck Serano, and personal fees from Amgen outside the submitted work; in addition, I.B. Tan has a patent for related to current work pending. V. Tergaonkar reports grants from National Research Foundation (NRF) and National Medical Research Council (NMRC) during the conduct of the study. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.
- JPLeRouzic 2y ago
  Please be more specific about what you find "a gem"? Writing patents is what most universities wait for from their employees; grants from research foundations have been the norm since the 1980s, and personal fees from the pharmaceutical industry are also the norm if you have worked with them. What would be more interesting would be a link with the vegan industry or PETA.
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    "Gem" - how about a lovely little summary of many of the fundamental problems with modern scientific research? I'll assume you've heard of the replication crisis, recent waves of retractions, "authors" who know almost nothing about the papers they've "written", and other signs that modern Big Science has pretty well stamped out all of the nice ideals about trustworthy & truth-seeking science & scientists which are still taught to schoolkids and the general public? > What would be more interesting... True. Mostly because, compared to the pharma industry and research foundations, the total funding available to those folks is on the very close order of $zero.
    - JPLeRouzic 2y ago
      > "authors" who know almost nothing about the papers they've "written" I agree this is quite common at least in the field that interests me: Neurodegenerative diseases. > "True. Mostly because compared to the pharma industry and research foundations..." I don't know, at the same time we would have no medical drugs without these organisms and yet they are vastly inefficient in their resource allocations: Testing drugs that were already tested or testing drugs without any pre-clinical indication they would have any beneficial effect or using animal models like mice, fishes, worms or even worse immortal cells that do not model human anatomy or physiology at all.

Here is a direct link to the study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38885349/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38885349/

by gls2ro 2y ago

Here is a direct link to the study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38885349/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38885349/

Which contains this gem: > Conflict of interest statement > R. Shanmugam reports a patent for Specific inhibition of telomerase activity in colorectal cancer pending. J.-L. Low reports grants from National Research Foundation, Singapore, during the conduct of the study. I.B. Tan reports grants and personal fees from MSD and Roche, personal fees from BMS, AstraZeneca, and Merck Serano, and personal fees from Amgen outside the submitted work; in addition, I.B. Tan has a patent for related to current work pending. V. Tergaonkar reports grants from National Research Foundation (NRF) and National Medical Research Council (NMRC) during the conduct of the study. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.

JPLeRouzic 2y ago
Please be more specific about what you find "a gem"? Writing patents is what most universities wait for from their employees; grants from research foundations have been the norm since the 1980s, and personal fees from the pharmaceutical industry are also the norm if you have worked with them. What would be more interesting would be a link with the vegan industry or PETA.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  "Gem" - how about a lovely little summary of many of the fundamental problems with modern scientific research? I'll assume you've heard of the replication crisis, recent waves of retractions, "authors" who know almost nothing about the papers they've "written", and other signs that modern Big Science has pretty well stamped out all of the nice ideals about trustworthy & truth-seeking science & scientists which are still taught to schoolkids and the general public? > What would be more interesting... True. Mostly because, compared to the pharma industry and research foundations, the total funding available to those folks is on the very close order of $zero.
  - JPLeRouzic 2y ago
    > "authors" who know almost nothing about the papers they've "written" I agree this is quite common at least in the field that interests me: Neurodegenerative diseases. > "True. Mostly because compared to the pharma industry and research foundations..." I don't know, at the same time we would have no medical drugs without these organisms and yet they are vastly inefficient in their resource allocations: Testing drugs that were already tested or testing drugs without any pre-clinical indication they would have any beneficial effect or using animal models like mice, fishes, worms or even worse immortal cells that do not model human anatomy or physiology at all.