If you were an allergy researcher ...

[LinksEtc]

Tweeted by @Asthma3Ways


One of a Kind
What do you do if your child has a condition that is new to science?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/21/one-of-a-kind-2

"That's basically what they left us with—'You need more patients,' " Matt told me. "And I said, 'All right, we'll get more.' "

Researchers also hesitate to share data with potential competitors, both to protect their funding and to insure that they get credit for their work.

The Mights couldn't wait for the culture of scientific research to change

"It's kind of a shift in the scientific world that we have to recognize—that, in this day of social media, dedicated, educated, and well-informed families have the ability to make a huge impact," she told me. "Gone are the days when we could just say, 'We're a cloistered community of researchers, and we alone know how to do this.' "

[LinksEtc]

Amid Public Feuds, A Venerated Medical Journal Finds Itself Under Attack
https://www.propublica.org/article/amid-public-feuds-a-venerated-medical-journal-finds-itself-under-attack

"Most people are afraid to say anything about the New England Journal because they're afraid they won't get something published there," said Topol, whose last piece appeared in its pages in 2011. "That's part of this oppression."

-----------------------



Tweeted by @ElaineSchattner


"Clinical Trials may be Compromised by Online Patient Chatter"

http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2014/07/30/clinical-trials-may-be-compromised-by-online-patient-chatter/

Are patients jeopardizing clinical trials by discussing them on social media?

There is growing fear in the medical community and the pharmaceutical industry that an increasing number of people who participate in clinical trials may indeed compromise research by chatting about treatments, side effects and enrollment tips on Facebook, online forums and blogs, according to The Wall Street Journal.

[LinksEtc]

Interesting discussion about patients/caregivers questioning FA research accuracy/conclusions & advocacy organization policy positions.


FARE CEO announced his resignation

[LinksEtc]

FARE summer 2014 newsletter

[LinksEtc]

A little humor (not related to any docs or orgs - just because science has been on my mind) ...


http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=761


----------------------


"The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html?partner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytmag&smtyp=cur

Under the 1976 Toxic Sub­stances Control Act, the E.P.A. can test chemicals only when it has been provided evidence of harm. This arrangement, which largely allows chemical companies to regulate themselves, is the reason that the E.P.A. has restricted only five chemicals, out of tens of thousands on the market, in the last 40 years.

----------------------


Meet the 'rented white coats' who defend toxic chemicals
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/08/19223/meet-rented-white-coats-who-defend-toxic-chemicals?utm_content=buffer4615e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=publici-buffer

The National Institutes of Health's budget for research grants has fallen 14 percent since its peak in 2004, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. With scarce resources, there's little money for academics to study chemicals that most already deem to be toxic. Yet regulatory officials and attorneys say companies have a strong financial interest in continuing to publish research favorable to industry.

----------------------


"Here's What Happened When A Group Of Scientists Went To Confront Their Congressional Tormentors"
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/scientists-congress-tormentors_us_570fcfefe4b03d8b7b9fbedf

The worlds of science and politics came together twice on Wednesday afternoon, and the collisions couldn't have been more diametrically at odds.

----------------------


Tweeted by @virginiahughes

EPA shut down their own scientist's fracking study. He leaves agency, FOIAs for data, and finishes study himself!!

Scientists Slam EPA For "Walking Away" From Fracking Pollution Study
http://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/fracking-in-wyoming

The decision by EPA to retreat from its draft study at Pavilion "wasn't made by any of the scientists" at the agency, DiGiulio said, but rather by the agency's senior leadership.

----------------------


WAR OF QS
http://dariuszgalasinski.com/2016/04/14/qualitative/

As I followed people who did qualitative research, I became involved in a conversation (started by Alex Clark) about BMJ's policy of not publishing qualitative research (which was hash-tagged #BMJNoqual). It quickly resulted in Trisha Greenhalgh's suggestion that an open letter should be written and sent to the BMJ asking them to reconsider their policy. As she gathered support of many wonderful scholars, she also offered me the opportunity to sign. Needless to say, I was honoured and delighted.

[LinksEtc]

If I were a GI researcher, I would think that this is pretty interesting ...


Tweeted by @AllergyKidsDoc

"Our Microbiome May Be Looking Out for Itself"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/science/our-microbiome-may-be-looking-out-for-itself.html?smid=tw-share

But in the journal Bioessays, a team of scientists has raised a creepier possibility. Perhaps our menagerie of germs is also influencing our behavior in order to advance its own evolutionary success — giving us cravings for certain foods, for example.

Maybe the microbiome is our puppet master.

---------------------------------------------------------------------



ETA related topic

Can Good Gut Bacteria Protect Against Food Allergies?-New Study

[LinksEtc]

Familiar concerns, different health issue.



Tweeted by @HeartSisters

"It's salt war time again: new research, arguments over public health recommendations, and issues of conflicts of interest"

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2014/08/its-salt-arguments-again-new-research-arguments-over-public-health-recommendations-and-issues-of-conflicts-of-interest/#.U-4PwoAHh-k.twitter

These conclusions sent me right to her conflict-of-interest disclosure statement.  Although Dr. Oparil reports receiving grants or fees from companies making anti-hypertensive drugs—-and, even more remarkable, from The Salt Institute—she states that she has no conflicts of interest.

I think she does.

[LinksEtc]

"Curbing bias in medical research"

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/08/curbing-bias-medical-research.html?utm_content=bufferb2bbc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Physicians rely on published data to determine the best treatment for their patients. When it is contaminated by inappropriate influence, doctors can't provide the best possible care.

We need to stop hiding our heads in the sand. The data is clear. Change is essential.

[LinksEtc]

I have no idea what I think about this, but it is interesting ....


Tweeted by @pfrishauf

"Reputation Systems: A New Vision for Publishing and Peer Review"

http://www.jopm.org/opinion/commentary/2009/10/21/reputation-systems-a-new-vision-for-publishing-and-peer-review/

every serious reader wants to trust that the science and clinical medicine they are accessing is as correct and current as possible and that biases and conflicts of authors and reviewers are disclosed

Editors and reviewers should be selected for expertise and trustworthiness, not credentials.

Consider the difference in a system that declares, "There is no real value in content that no one views," to what we have in STM publishing today: the " impact factor" that declares a journal important the more it is cited.

[CMdeux]

Well, the thing is, though-- impact factor DOES mean something.  What it means is that a discovery is as "important" as other scientists working in the area determine it to be.  That is, a BIG-name in a field can publish something in a HUGE name journal, all right, but that doesn't make it trustworthy or of great significance.  A really great study published by a person without any ties to a larger institution, in a virtual backwater of a journal, though... THAT paper might go on to earn lots of citations and become one of the "rocks" of any intro in the niche.  KWIM?

Sort of the way that Pumphrey's paper has become.  That can happen regardless of how well KNOWN a researcher happens to be at the time of publication.

The problem with evaluations of "expertise" and "trustworthiness" in selecting reviewers is that scientists are people-- and therefore, they automatically grant name-recognition with more trustworthiness than it really warrants, and they also have FRIENDS who are colleagues.  Besides, it's already supposed to work this way-- and doesn't.  Also-- what warrants more trust-- an article on vaccine safety penned by Jenny McCarthy?  Or a physician from Omaha who happens to also have a PhD in immunology?  I'd go with the latter pretty much every time, in spite of name recognition; that's a credentialing bias, I suppose, but I stand by it.  Credentials DO indicate a certain basic level of expertise-- period-- or medical boards wouldn't require them in order to practice medicine.  KWIM?

I've often thought that people who first step into a relative vacuum and are willing to be minor celebrities are granted a sort of magical level of credibility and authority as experts-- sometimes WAY more than is actually justifiable.  So no matter how little they actually know, they can still be "the" authority over a long period of time-- just because they were FIRST.  FAAN has had some of that going for it over the years. 

The problem with reputation systems is that scientists are people first and vulcans second-- and reputation system validation invites publishing and grantsmanship to become popularity contests.  NOT good.  NOT good at all.

[LinksEtc]

Tweeted by @phdcomics

The Internet Effect on Productivity

http://m.tapastic.com/episode/51701

[LinksEtc]

Tweeted by @kevinmd

"Medical journals have to become more like blogs"
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/09/medical-journals-become-like-blogs.html

Consider this. A blog post of mine, "Appendicitis: Diagnosis, CT Scans and Reality," which I wrote 4 years ago has received over 19,600 page views and more than 100 comments. I am certain that post has been read far more than all of my published research papers combined. In fact, my 550 blog posts have recorded over 1 million page views.

What does it all mean?

[LinksEtc]

Tweeted by @Richard56

"Richard Smith: Why scientists should be held to a higher standard of honesty than the average person"
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/09/02/richard-smith-why-scientists-should-be-held-to-a-higher-standard-of-honesty-than-the-average-person/

Scientists must keep careful records and be scrupulous with gathering and storing their data, but they have ultimately to be trusted.

The true scientist (if there is such a person) will be delighted when his or her favourite hypothesis is slayed by data.

[LinksEtc]

Tweeted by @HeartSisters

"Doctors' Magical Thinking About Conflicts of Interest"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/09/upshot/doctors-magical-thinking-about-conflicts-of-interest.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Conflicts of interest are real, and they are still influencing decisions from the level of the patient all the way up to national health policy. We will never be able to eliminate them all. But acknowledging them and talking about them openly is an important first step toward minimizing their impact.

[CMdeux]

Tweeted by @Richard56

"Richard Smith: Why scientists should be held to a higher standard of honesty than the average person"
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/09/02/richard-smith-why-scientists-should-be-held-to-a-higher-standard-of-honesty-than-the-average-person/

Scientists must keep careful records and be scrupulous with gathering and storing their data, but they have ultimately to be trusted.

The true scientist (if there is such a person) will be delighted when his or her favourite hypothesis is slayed by data.

Um-- well.


"Delighted" might be overstating things just slightly.   

  "Intrigued and excited" though-- that much I buy.