3 ms·
A number of NIH grants fund clinical trials. I direct you to the R34 mechanism, which is for Phase III trials as an example. And when you're evaluating science
by Fomite 13y ago
A number of NIH grants fund clinical trials. I direct you to the R34 mechanism, which is for Phase III trials as an example.
And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality.
- dnautics 13y agoAnd when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality. This is incredibly short-sighted. Overvaluation of the literature is exactly why people pollute the literature with fraudulent results. It's why paper reviewing process and citations are polluted with political machinations. Ultimately, science is the entire corpus, from experimental design, through data collection, and presentation of work as papers. Reification of the publication process quietly enables researchers who keep everything up to publication a black box. Moreover because some NIH grants fund clinical trials doesn't mean that all (or even the average) NIH grants have that level of scrutiny
- Fomite 13y agoHow is it short sighted? What other mechanism is there to evaluate the quality of scientific work? They haven't presented at meetings as far as I can tell, and not in ways that manifested in say, a proceedings publication. Their internet postings have been vague on specific details. Am I to magically observe their experimental design and data collection? Or do I evaluate their work like I do all others - through the literature they present?
- dnautics 13y agoHey! You gave some great examples! Go to meetings. Talk to them. Send them emails asking about their work. Observe experimental design and data collection (if that's not public, that should be part of your judgement). Read non-publication sources (patents, regulatory submissions). And then yes, do squishy stuff like "judge their character", "talk to their postdocs", "ask around about professional opinions". It's a conceit to operate as if science isn't a human endeavor. Also you are now conflating the specific case of this project with the general case. Read their INDA, if you are really itching for details.
- Fomite 13y agoI've read their white paper, it too is short on details. Right now, their experimental design and data collection aren't public. I go to meetings - I saw nothing about them at the largest infectious disease conference of the year this year. I'm really not conflating anything. I'm very skeptical of any project getting this much attention that doesn't have some papers published. It's not the only step, but it's a step, and one that hasn't been done yet. But, as an infectious disease epidemiologist, I'd be thrilled if I were wrong, and they were somehow paragons of vaccine research operating in stealth mode.