"John H." <johnh at faraway.> wrote in message
news:3ffbc46d at dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> <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
> > > Life Sciences. Reductionism with a vengence, perilously close to a
> > > 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
> 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
> submissions would be made to the journal. I sometimes wonder if it is time
> for a more co-ordinated approach to research.
I proposed a self-building computer-database approach
in AoK, Ap3.
Everything would be accessible in it, and everything keyed to
the Neuroanatomy - every neuron that anyone studies, all
published images - everything.
One would 'drill-down' into the DB, to the depth of one's
choosing, by clicking on a nervous system image, and, in
that way, could access everything that's ever been published.
The DB would include "for" and "against" rankings - kind of like
the way folks 'review' books at amazon.com - only, the 'votes'
would all bare the names of Researchers, and, as the 'votes'
accumulated, their correlated stuff would reflect the 'votes',
hierarchically, within the DB.
In this way, everyone would have access to everything, all in a
way that's easily 'addressible', and that 'declared' its experience
within the minds of folks who do the Research.
Stuff of best-understanding would 'percolate' to the top of
the hierarchy of hierarchies.
Unresolved questions would 'declare' themselves in the dearth
of their DB correlates.
Ancient stuff that's been 'thrown-out' could be reconsidered
periodically [to see if any newer stuff 'revitalizes' it], and to
educate folks with respect to 'dead-ends',
And so forth.
[If folks step-back, a bit, they'll see that, in my posts, I've
just been 'constructing' such a 'db' - that is, my approach
has been like how I'd use that DB, if it existed.]
>>> > 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
> > think?
I strongly agree, but I 'skipped' this paragraph when orkeltatte first
posted it because I didn't understand "Salutogenese". [Which leaves
me red-faced because I'm always dumping 'unfamiliar' words all
over the place, and should've known-better.]
The emphasis on "Pathology" has actually been like a 'brake' with
respect to the going-forward of Neuroscience - causing folks to
'get lost in the details'.
I don't mean to say that the Medical applications of Neuroscience
are 'unimportant'. Of course, they are!
I'm saying that, to actually have Success in treating Pathology,
it's best to actually understand what's going on within nervous
But the long-standing 'preoccupation' with 'pathology' has flat-out
worked against the development of understanding with respect to
nervous system function.
What's prevailed has been closer to 'alchemy' than to Science.
I understand that that is changing, and I Welcome the change.
Anyway, I'm still 'red-faced' [embarassed] at having 'missed' the earlier
opportunity to discuss this =important= point.
> Yes, there was some interesting research on this last year in relation to
> longevity. A correlation was found between relatively high ratio of il4 &
> to il1 & 6 enables a greater degree of longevity. ie. a slightly reduced
> 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
> 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,
> 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
> 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."
And, in that way, he was "never at rest until [he] got out every rub."
I laughed and laughed the first 'time' I came across that :-]
"rub" = "TD E/I(up)".
"Getting the 'rubs' out" = "TD E/I-minimization".
Newton would've been 'comfortable' with NDT :-]
And he knew about "[standing] on the shoulders of giants", too.
ken [k. p. collins]
> > > You have been enlightened and again I suggest that all students of
> > > would benefit by familiarising themselves with the history of science.
> > > 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!
> > Orkeltatte