Replies to post #159849 on Biotech Values

[vinmantoo]

{{OT: I guess I wasn't asking for a list of what you do. It's a matter of what ALL researchers do. So I find most of your response to be besides the point.}}

No it isn't besides the point, it is exactly the point. You made a blanket charge that 50% of academic research is wring and that is BS.

{{Nor do I find this a pharma versus academic science thing. I'm just worried about what I contribute to, and that's the academic side. I think we owe it to ourselves as a community to do the most reliable / reproducible science possible, and let history sort out what was important and what was incremental. }}

Yes we owe it to ourselves, to those who follow us and to taxpayers who fund our research to provide the best,most accurate information we can, and to point out where others fall short of that standard. I do that when I review papers and when I attend seminars.


{{Also, I do not agree with this concept that airing basic science's dirty laundry somehow helps those who are against it.}}

I am fine, no I applaud and encourage airing "dirty laundry". I am not fine with throwing dirt on all aspects of scientific research because some specific areas has issues of reproducibility due either the complexity or inherent variability of the system, or the methods being utilized.


You posted the following

{{Those are just two simple examples, and I'm even omitting the plethora of proteomic and transcript analyses done without appropriate controls and without regard for the fundamentals behind the methods.}}

Even with the best controls and understanding of the fundamentals there is an inherent error in such broad genomic studies, and so what. I heard a statistic that only about 10% of the synthetic sick or lethal interaction coming of out the yeast deletion collection are valid or stand up to scrutiny. So what. The hits give suggestions of what might be occurring or might be important but others need to investigate in more detail. People follow up using genomic or proteomic screens using other proteins in the same complex or in the same pathway. It becomes much clearer which are true hits and which are spurious background. If you don't think the inaccurate charge that 50% of current published papers can't be reproduced will be used to cut or demean basic research, then you are pretty naive.