<orkeltatte at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:84da9680.0401070003.321a77e0 at posting.google.com...
> "John H." <johnh at faraway.> wrote in message
news:<3ffabdb8 at dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
>>> > I've read far too many journal articles that appear more like a
> > to achieve another citation, or secure tenure or funding or commercial
> > interest; rather than being aimed at providing new and valuable
> > There is now a plethora of journals and in my opinion too much being
> > published, to the extent now that data overload is a serious problem in
> > Life Sciences. Reductionism with a vengence, perilously close to a type
> > medieval scholasticism.
>> I agree in that sense that researchers seldom submittes articles from
> their work, where their hypothesis tested wrong , eg "negative"
> findings. Negative findings in research does no good on your research
> fundings and the chance of getting grants, but are just as important
> to publish , and just as important to the scientific community and
> overall research work , as "positive" ones.
I vaguely recall something about a "Journal of Negative Results" and have a
noted a few articles where the authors noted that their initial hypothesis
had been contradicted by the experiments, but I have to wonder just how many
submissions would be made to the journal. I sometimes wonder if it is time
for a more co-ordinated approach to research.
> In my field of expertise I could parallell to Aron Antonovsky´s -
> Salutogenese as opposed to the pathogenese. Most of the scientific
> work in medicin has been done on the pathogenese , but not until the
> last decay or so serious work has been done to answer the question "
> How come some individuals , despite substantial environmental
> riskfactors, do not come down with sickness or disease?"
> This is the "other side of the coin" , and just as scientifically
> signifiquant to elucidate in medicine, as the pathogenese, don´t you
Yes, there was some interesting research on this last year in relation to
longevity. A correlation was found between relatively high ratio of il4 & 10
to il1 & 6 enables a greater degree of longevity. ie. a slightly reduced Th
1 arm seems to confer longevity, this being concordant with studies on the
age related immunological impact on CNS function and also heart disease.
Your assertion is correct though, there needs to be more attention on what
keeps people healthy. As the Minister for Health here in Australia asserted
a couple of years ago: The Health Department should be called The Disease
Department. I have some sympathy for you researchers: You must do your
research, often do teaching, submit grant submissions, maintain tenure, feed
the kids, love the wife, keep up with the literature, and have a life. I
think it is too much, I think in the Life Sciences what is increasingly
required is more in the spirit of Newton
"If I have succeeded in my inquiries, more than others, I owe it less to any
superior strength of mind, than to a habit of patient thinking."
"I keep the subject constantly before me, and wait till the first dawnings
open slowly by little and little into the full and clear light."
>> > You have been enlightened and again I suggest that all students of
> > would benefit by familiarising themselves with the history of science. A
> > good start might be the famous paper by Peter Medawar, "Is the
> > Paper a Fraud?". I haven't read any of the history in years but read
> > to realise that scientists are also prone to the same human frailities
> > plague the rest of humanity, albeit generally to a lesser degree.
> I totally agree on he signifiquance of history, not only in the field
> of science.
>> > PS: for the record, I rely mostly on scientific journals for new ideas
> > insights. I just don't rely on them exclusively.
> > John H.
>> Same here!