 |
 |
I appreciated Bob Newbrough's comments regarding funding decisions. As one who is involved in the peer review process I can state that the process per se is not the biggest problem. The problem is with the entrenchment of paradigms or world views that scientists hold - with the virtual force of a religious conviction. An example of a paradigm in PD research is: Sinemet is the gold standard for treatment. Another could be: MAO-B inhibitors are valuable in limiting progression of PD. Now, these statements have some evidence to support them. (NOTE: scientists never deal in proof, just evidence) The way science works is to hack at research WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PREVAILING PARADIGM. When a researcher has evidence to support an alternative paradigm he or she will indeed be able to publish it, however, when it comes to funding, a different attitude will be encountered. Please understand that there are few things that actually block ones research (funds notwithstanding). Academic freedom is rather absolute and if one has reasonable data to support their conclusions, (and money to do the experiments) one will almost always find some peer-reviewed journal to publish it. With respect to funding, the unwritten rule is that the paradigm is king. Period. In political terms this translates into (in the minds of a funding agency) the view that what has gone before will be repeatable in another laboratory so lets go with what will succeed so that in the end the fact that we supported this research will indeed get acknowleged when the funded investigator publishes the work we paid for. To fund a project that proposes to do cutting edge research carries with it at least some risk that publications will be few and far between no matter how reasonable the proposed science sounds. A typical review of this sort of project would perhaps read, in part: " The investigator proposes to perform a well designed series of experiments to test the interesting new hypothesis that........(whatever). The investigator has numerous publications, is quite productive and is well qualfied to persue research into this area. However, he/she has presented little in the way of preliminary data in support of the present application. I therefore would express reserved enthusiasm for this project". ............ You see....our theoretical reviewer killed this one with kindness. ......that's how research works. The only way around this delema is to get funded to do a hack-science study and employ some of these funds to do the cutting edge stuff. That's how it's done. Slow.....real slow. How well would you out there "do" this kind of frustration? Jeffrey Tosk, Ph.D. ([log in to unmask]) \associate Professor and Director, Parkinson's Research Center