What a loss for the country that Vinay was let go from the FDA. One of the few people in science that I trust to put principles over politics. Unfortunately, that's precisely why he'll likely never work in government again.
Like having to fill time in a 24/7 news cycle on cable news, the plethora of medical journals provide more than ample space for nonsense to be published. I used to lament the difficulty in trying to keep up, but when I review the Table of Contents, I find few articles worth the effort. How editors let this much slop get published is an embarrassment.
Perhaps this is precisely where a council of laypeople can accept, modify, or reject the RCT.
If RCTs are the bread and butter for advancing clinical science and interventions, and the primary reason for the very existence of a research infrastructure that includes CTSAs, then having an impartial representation from the public these very expensive studies are meant to serve seems to be warranted.
Curious about your thoughts on age limits for NIH investigators? Probably not legal to discriminate just based on age but my sense is that much of the NIH budget goes to senior investigators who are just coasting for the last few years (sometimes decades) of their career without really contribute much to science.
Not surprised to read this. Curious as to what your view is on reproducibility - how many successful attempts to reproduce should be documented before publication in a scientific journal is warranted?
We in principle learn from what didn't turn out as expected if the hypothesis was reasonable. Much of that never sees a publication and we are doomed to repeat it. If we don't analyze and adjust, all is wasted. The size of many grants are too small to validate ideas with well designed studies. Purveyors of methods for various omics rarely have access to well described samples in adequate number. They publish methods that are rarely, if ever, used. We are now surrendering to extreme animal rights fans that believe a patient is best simulated on a "chip." That is uninformed and will not end well. China is holding us hostage with rare earth elements and NHPs. Aaargh.
The vast majority of its wasted.
Or perhaps even all of it?
What a loss for the country that Vinay was let go from the FDA. One of the few people in science that I trust to put principles over politics. Unfortunately, that's precisely why he'll likely never work in government again.
Dr. Prasad, you give me hope for humanity! 🫶🫶🫶🫶🫶
Like having to fill time in a 24/7 news cycle on cable news, the plethora of medical journals provide more than ample space for nonsense to be published. I used to lament the difficulty in trying to keep up, but when I review the Table of Contents, I find few articles worth the effort. How editors let this much slop get published is an embarrassment.
There's no question that in an environment like this fraudulent and UNreproducible results will run rampant.
Easy peasy: All of it.
Perhaps this is precisely where a council of laypeople can accept, modify, or reject the RCT.
If RCTs are the bread and butter for advancing clinical science and interventions, and the primary reason for the very existence of a research infrastructure that includes CTSAs, then having an impartial representation from the public these very expensive studies are meant to serve seems to be warranted.
Curious about your thoughts on age limits for NIH investigators? Probably not legal to discriminate just based on age but my sense is that much of the NIH budget goes to senior investigators who are just coasting for the last few years (sometimes decades) of their career without really contribute much to science.
How are we supposed to address racial/gender/sexual minority disparities if we don't measure them and prove they exist?
Not surprised to read this. Curious as to what your view is on reproducibility - how many successful attempts to reproduce should be documented before publication in a scientific journal is warranted?
We in principle learn from what didn't turn out as expected if the hypothesis was reasonable. Much of that never sees a publication and we are doomed to repeat it. If we don't analyze and adjust, all is wasted. The size of many grants are too small to validate ideas with well designed studies. Purveyors of methods for various omics rarely have access to well described samples in adequate number. They publish methods that are rarely, if ever, used. We are now surrendering to extreme animal rights fans that believe a patient is best simulated on a "chip." That is uninformed and will not end well. China is holding us hostage with rare earth elements and NHPs. Aaargh.