A personal observation...

[Freakazoid]

you're special

???

It's pretty much a fact that medical education is increasingly becoming more academic. There isn't a single competitive fellowship that won't favor an academic background over a technical one. The new MCAT in a few years time will also require an extensive biology background unlike the old one.

Especially with medical research becoming progressively reliant on bioinformatics.

[Pacerlive]

I want to have someone come in here and make me feel stupid about my profession.

What is your profession and I will take a crack at it. Translational medicine?

[flips333]

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.

[Pacerlive]

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.

Its quite possible to get different results but in my field its hinges on who has the best experimental design. I deal with low frequency events that are hard to identify from the same events happening in other cell types. I have been apart of methodology papers that explain this in great detail and I can tell you quite a few researchers choose to ignore this caveat.

I have also been apart of discussions on improving experimental designs to better reflect injurys that occur in humans and as one colleague put it, " We don't need another injury model." That was said by leading researchers in zebrafish. There is no question that the new model was indeed a better reflection of human injuries and is a common pracitice in mamalian models to address remodeling in the same injury.

Point is if you try to replicate someones work to prove it right or wrong its increasingly difficult to publish it in the similar level journal which can often time remove the motivation of trying to replicate someone elses work in the frist place. Make enough enemies doing this and it becomes increasingly difficult to publish your own work. Egos get in the way and even if you "roll it out" its still a subtle slap in the face of other researchers work.

[flips333]

Its quite possible to get different results but in my field its hinges on who has the best experimental design. I deal with low frequency events that are hard to identify from the same events happening in other cell types. I have been apart of methodology papers that explain this in great detail and I can tell you quite a few researchers choose to ignore this caveat.

I have also been apart of discussions on improving experimental designs to better reflect injurys that occur in humans and as one colleague put it, " We don't need another injury model." That was said by leading researchers in zebrafish. There is no question that the new model was indeed a better reflection of human injuries and is a common pracitice in mamalian models to address remodeling in the same injury.

Point is if you try to replicate someones work to prove it right or wrong its increasingly difficult to publish it in the similar level journal which can often time remove the motivation of trying to replicate someone elses work in the frist place. Make enough enemies doing this and it becomes increasingly difficult to publish your own work. Egos get in the way and even if you "roll it out" its still a subtle slap in the face of other researchers work.

Well there is a level of politics and a level of irrational belief in science that the general public does not know. There are arguments about what is the most wise use of money and what are the best methods. I think sometimes there is an assumption on both sides where people will say look at this I am right, And the other side isn't listening. But meanwhile the other side is saying look at this I am right, but your side isn't listening. I have yet to meet a scientist without a big Ego... Lord knows Myself included, and sometimes while I am lecturing about how right I am, really what has gone on is I am blinded by my own certainty to the other possibilities...

It's all in the game though. In order to play it well you have to be a politician, a socialite climber, an accountant, a writer, a marketer, a financier, and a campaign strategist, ON TOP of doing good science (at the very least you have to align yourself with people who can do all these things). If you can not accomplish all these things then the message either doesn't get made, doesn't get out, or doesn't get listened too.