Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,489
    vCash
    1500

    A personal observation...

    So I am relatively new here and I wanted to throw this observation out there and see what the forum opinion on it was.

    I have worked for 10 years in a basic research lab and I have worked closely with MD's and been apart of some important studies concerning my field of interest.

    Now over the years I have seen two different appoaches to science that for one concerns me and secondly gives me pause whenever I see new studies being performed on humans.

    The observation is this, MD's lack training in biological research and often over inerpret their results. They are more likely not to focus on the mechanism and often just focus on a positive result without understanding what led to it.

    I know I am kind of making a blanket statement here and I don't believe all MD's do this but I am concerned that this is more than just a trend in my own field. I have been apart of disproving therapies in humans and its striking to me how many come close to making it into our mainstream clinical practices.

    I know in my field what I am saying up above is nothing new and in fact we come to expect it but I am wondering if this is a more common trend.

    I should say also that I know plenty of MD's that actually do a fantastic job in their science but I still believe we have a problem as a scientific community in the training of our MD's to do quality work on the bench.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,802
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    So I am relatively new here and I wanted to throw this observation out there and see what the forum opinion on it was.

    I have worked for 10 years in a basic research lab and I have worked closely with MD's and been apart of some important studies concerning my field of interest.

    Now over the years I have seen two different appoaches to science that for one concerns me and secondly gives me pause whenever I see new studies being performed on humans.

    The observation is this, MD's lack training in biological research and often over inerpret their results. They are more likely not to focus on the mechanism and often just focus on a positive result without understanding what led to it.

    I know I am kind of making a blanket statement here and I don't believe all MD's do this but I am concerned that this is more than just a trend in my own field. I have been apart of disproving therapies in humans and its striking to me how many come close to making it into our mainstream clinical practices.

    I know in my field what I am saying up above is nothing new and in fact we come to expect it but I am wondering if this is a more common trend.

    I should say also that I know plenty of MD's that actually do a fantastic job in their science but I still believe we have a problem as a scientific community in the training of our MD's to do quality work on the bench.
    An MD is really a technical degree not a research degree. Many MD's get the training necessary to be excellent scientists many do not. It is a problem not just for interpretation but for the nuts and bolts of the science that is done.

    As far as "disproving" therapies, I'm not surprised that these things get close. And I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them might actually still be viable treatments. There is a pressure to create studies that will make it look like the drugs work. And there is a sheer level of variability that means a treatment that works in a small subset may be a valuable asset. If you don't use the right population you may miss where a drug or other treatment is valuable.

    I think, as a scientist, throwing around the word proof, and disproof is very bold indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,489
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    An MD is really a technical degree not a research degree. Many MD's get the training necessary to be excellent scientists many do not. It is a problem not just for interpretation but for the nuts and bolts of the science that is done.

    As far as "disproving" therapies, I'm not surprised that these things get close. And I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them might actually still be viable treatments. There is a pressure to create studies that will make it look like the drugs work. And there is a sheer level of variability that means a treatment that works in a small subset may be a valuable asset. If you don't use the right population you may miss where a drug or other treatment is valuable.

    I think, as a scientist, throwing around the word proof, and disproof is very bold indeed.
    So most MD's get involved in science when they do a fellowship and they are woefully under trained in how to practice at a level of a phD. Unfortunatley most translational grants have a MD approve of the therapy and unfortunately a lot of politices are involved and I see questionable therapies get approved based on bad science. I have seen major news cast show a story on stem cells as a therapy and know it has been disproven in lower mammals. Of course the major public doesn't know that it has been shown not to work but it gets funded anyway.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,572
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    So most MD's get involved in science when they do a fellowship and they are woefully under trained in how to practice at a level of a phD. Unfortunatley most translational grants have a MD approve of the therapy and unfortunately a lot of politices are involved and I see questionable therapies get approved based on bad science. I have seen major news cast show a story on stem cells as a therapy and know it has been disproven in lower mammals. Of course the major public doesn't know that it has been shown not to work but it gets funded anyway.
    I think there are more MDs with PhDs involved in science than vice versa. And forget the media, they sensationalize every scientific finding when the news is slow. Funding isn't based on public perception anyway, if it was we'll have more research grants for snake oil.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    Most people I work with are honest and are critical on the research but they represent a small portion or researchers that review the grants in my field.
    What is your field?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,802
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    So most MD's get involved in science when they do a fellowship and they are woefully under trained in how to practice at a level of a phD. Unfortunatley most translational grants have a MD approve of the therapy and unfortunately a lot of politices are involved and I see questionable therapies get approved based on bad science. I have seen major news cast show a story on stem cells as a therapy and know it has been disproven in lower mammals. Of course the major public doesn't know that it has been shown not to work but it gets funded anyway.
    Really you probably want to stop using that word. Evidence suggests that it will not work would be the way you want to put it (unless something has been replicated in numerous ways that prove is way too strong a word.)


    Popular newscasts on science are generally garbage. They present one study as absolute proof that something works or one study as absolute proof that something does not.
    Last edited by flips333; 11-17-2012 at 03:04 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,915
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    There is a pressure to create studies that will make it look like the drugs work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    Unfortunatley most translational grants have a MD approve of the therapy and unfortunately a lot of politices are involved and I see questionable therapies get approved based on bad science.
    Questioning mainstream medicine? Get ready to be ripped to shreds in 3, 2, 1...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,802
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Questioning mainstream medicine? Get ready to be ripped to shreds in 3, 2, 1...
    Are you equating this conversation with homeopathic medicine, or some reike nonsense? Please don't.

    I'd honestly love to see anyone come in here and rip me to shreds on clinical research. I need an ego takedown. I say whomever you are please bring it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    7,915
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Are you equating this conversation with homeopathic medicine, or some reike nonsense? Please don't.

    I'd honestly love to see anyone come in here and rip me to shreds on clinical research. I need an ego takedown. I say whomever you are please bring it.
    I'm equating this conversation with anyone suggesting that there possibly be any type of forces at work which may put profit over health

    *edit* what do you mean exactly by your second paragraph?
    Last edited by nastynice; 11-17-2012 at 05:02 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,489
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    An MD is really a technical degree not a research degree. Many MD's get the training necessary to be excellent scientists many do not. It is a problem not just for interpretation but for the nuts and bolts of the science that is done.

    As far as "disproving" therapies, I'm not surprised that these things get close. And I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them might actually still be viable treatments. There is a pressure to create studies that will make it look like the drugs work. And there is a sheer level of variability that means a treatment that works in a small subset may be a valuable asset. If you don't use the right population you may miss where a drug or other treatment is valuable.

    I think, as a scientist, throwing around the word proof, and disproof is very bold indeed.
    I use these words since I have been around it long enough to call the BS for what it is. In fairness I work in a controversial field and I surely don't think all fields are plagued with the same level of problems that I have to deal with.

    As far as clincal trials are concerned its more complicated but I am not simply talking about applying a drug and seeing a reduction in a tumor. In that case its quite easy to make a call.

    In other fields such as stem cell therapy where it can be impossible to track the cells it can be very difficult to conclude an improvement. For one its not always clear that the cells differnetiate, survive and integrate into the host.
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 11-19-2012 at 02:02 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,802
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    I use these words since I have been around it long enough to call the BS for what it is. In fairness I work in a controversial field and I surely don't think all fields are plagued with the same level of problems that I have to deal with.

    As far as clincal trials are concerned its more complicated but I am not simply talking about applying a drug and seeing a reduction in a tumor. In that case its quite easy to make a call.

    In other fields such as stem cell therapy where it can be impossible to track the cells it can be very difficult to conclude an improvement. For one its not always clear that the cells differnetiate, survive and integrate into the host.
    Bull **** doesn't prove or disprove anything. I've been around long enough to know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,489
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Bull **** doesn't prove or disprove anything. I've been around long enough to know that.
    LOl. I have been a part of multiple papers showing different results in my field. I am also supported by grants off of those results.

    Just out of curious have you ever tried to publish a paper that showed different results than a colleague? Have you ever tried to submit it to the same journal?
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 11-19-2012 at 03:21 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    6,802
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    LOl. I have been a part of multiple papers showing different results in my field. I am also supported by grants off of those results.

    Just out of curious have you ever tried to publish a paper that showed different results than a colleague? Have you ever tried to submit it to the same journal?
    But it's possible to get different results. Maybe it's because I am usually dealing with psychology but when I read two studies with similar designs that haven't come to the same conclusion I see it as an opportunity to delve into the differences to figure out why. Psychology and for that matter human biology can be remarkably variable.

    Yes, It's hard. I'm still relatively young, But I have even gotten negative results published. (Side note on the sometimes inadequacies of peer review... My reviewers on my negative complained that I didn't control for multiple comparisons.) But it's always difficult to publish against established (science can be oddly dogmatic in their belief) Always got to understand how your work will be accepted. It's sometimes good to roll stuff out piece by piece so one isn't seen as being to confrontational.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,572
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    So I am relatively new here and I wanted to throw this observation out there and see what the forum opinion on it was.

    I have worked for 10 years in a basic research lab and I have worked closely with MD's and been apart of some important studies concerning my field of interest.

    Now over the years I have seen two different appoaches to science that for one concerns me and secondly gives me pause whenever I see new studies being performed on humans.

    The observation is this, MD's lack training in biological research and often over inerpret their results. They are more likely not to focus on the mechanism and often just focus on a positive result without understanding what led to it.

    I know I am kind of making a blanket statement here and I don't believe all MD's do this but I am concerned that this is more than just a trend in my own field. I have been apart of disproving therapies in humans and its striking to me how many come close to making it into our mainstream clinical practices.

    I know in my field what I am saying up above is nothing new and in fact we come to expect it but I am wondering if this is a more common trend.

    I should say also that I know plenty of MD's that actually do a fantastic job in their science but I still believe we have a problem as a scientific community in the training of our MD's to do quality work on the bench.
    It really depends on their education and what their background is. For example, my school is known for churning out scientists and few practitioners because they feel that that's where medicine is headed. This seems to be the trend at all the top schools as well. As a result, most of the MDs from my school end up getting a PhD or already have double doctorates and because of our unique university-health network, there's also a greater incentive to do so. The application process seems to reflect this as well.

    However, I have seemed to notice what you're noticing as well especially from students in America (usually from the South) or smaller schools and osteopathic schools. A lot of them severely need rudimentary training in the scientific process as well as basic knowledge of statistics, biology and chemistry.
    Last edited by Freakazoid; 11-17-2012 at 01:29 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,489
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Freakazoid View Post
    It really depends on their education and what their background is. For example, my school is known for churning out scientists and few practitioners because they feel that that's where medicine is headed. This seems to be the trend at all the top schools as well. As a result, most of the MDs from my school end up getting a PhD or already have double doctorates and because of our unique university-health network, there's also a greater incentive to do so. The application process seems to reflect this as well.

    However, I have seemed to notice what you're noticing as well especially from students in America (usually from the South) or smaller schools and osteopathic schools. A lot of them severely need rudimentary training in the scientific process as well as basic knowledge of statistics, biology and chemistry.
    From my perspective I see I number of MD's that want to practice science but they don't understand the process and they have this whimiscal notion of the process.

    I have seen this at major universities and I understand that Md's are not required to go through the same processes as PhD's but it ends up leading to sciensitist not getting funded who should and in some cases therapies that are questionable at best and in some cases criminal.

    It really does make me angry since the basic public deserve better from their tax dolllar and not to be lied to and used as guinea pigs.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,572
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    From my perspective I see I number of MD's that want to practice science but they don't understand the process and they have this whimiscal notion of the process.

    I have seen this at major universities and I understand that Md's are not required to go through the same processes as PhD's but it ends up leading to sciensitist not getting funded who should and in some cases therapies that are questionable at best and in some cases criminal.

    It really does make me angry since the basic public deserve better from their tax dolllar and not to be lied to and used as guinea pigs.
    Don't their co-workers read/review their research? Poor research reflects poorly on them and their institution as well. It also affects all future operating grants as well.
    Last edited by Freakazoid; 11-17-2012 at 02:49 PM.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •