Log In | Register
In 2003, a group of scientists and executives from the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the drug and medical-imaging industries, universities and nonprofit groups joined in a project that experts say had no precedent: a collaborative effort to find the biological markers that show the progression of Alzheimer's disease in the human brain.
Rare Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer's
Seeded on Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:34 AM EDT
Article Source: The New York Times- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (13)
Aaaah ............ hmmmm ........I uh.... I had a comment to make ....... but I can't remember what it was.
- 4 votes
#1 - Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:38 AM EDT
Ha! Jerry, I was all ready to make some kind of serious comment here and then I read yours. I can't quit laughing now! You are too funny!
- 5 votes
Makes you wonder why this is a new or rare idea. Seems like a no-brainer.
- 3 votes
no precedent: a collaborative effort
Good grief. JC is right. Somebody hit them with a DUH hammer.
- 3 votes
Makes you wonder why this is a new or rare idea. Seems like a no-brainer.
I understand that many in the R&D community are working for private companies but you would think scientists would know the benefits of working together on projects like this...
- 3 votes
Oh.... I remember now.
Everybody wants to be the first to announce a breakthrough. Scientist are very secretive (paranoid actually) about their research. They are afraid someone will steal their findings, or "spin off" from their findings and get undeserved credit for a breakthrough.
Writing a paper on a medical research breakthrough, and having it published in a publication such as the "New England Journal of Medicine", can greatly enhance the stature of a scientist. Also, it makes it easier to receive grants making it possible to conduct further research.
- 4 votes
Meanwhile, people with Alzheimer's progressively decline and fade from this world.
- 5 votes
Actually JC, the group has decided to collaborate regarding Alzheimer's research.
Hopefully they will find success in this effort and be encouraged to share medical research more often.
I didn't intend to make light of Alzheimer's in Cmmt #1, my mother suffers from Alzheimer's and everytime I forget to put the milk back in the refrig (which is everytime) I think about the decease.
Decease, illness, injury and death are all a part of this fragile thing we call life. For me, humor is the one way to help make life's tragedies more bearable.
Furthermore, .......................... hmmmmm ......... never mind.
(Damn! Did I forget to take my memory pills again?)
- 3 votes
#2 - Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:02 PM EDTYes, I understand what you were saying and am glad that these scientists are collaborating. Was commenting on the drive to be the first which can slow the progress that is the true goal of research such as this--not offended in the slightest by the humor, sorry if I gave that impression.
- 2 votes
Was commenting on the drive to be the first which can slow the progress that is the true goal of research such as this
Actually sometimes collaboration can slow things down, because these guys like to check and double check everything. When there are too many fingers in the pot, the double checking becomes cumbersome, arguments break out and progress is hindered.
These guys are driven, when they work alone they sometimes work around the clock. There has always been a debate in the research community about independent work vs collaboration.
I should have put the comment about humor in a separate post. It occurred to me that some people might think I was not serious about the issue, like Rottlady who was taken aback by the humor, made a comment about it, but then did not post her thoughts about Alzheimer's, so the comment was meant as a general notation.
No problem JC Thank you for your input.
- 1 vote
Thank you, great seed. Was about to seed it myself & you'd already gotten there!
- 1 vote
Jerry,
I’ve been giving this article a lot of thought since I read it yesterday. The approach is highly commendable, but there are so many barriers to extending it to other areas of research.
I think that it would be easy to make the case that the moral imperative to solve Alzheimer’s was a strong driver in setting up and maintaining the approach take here. That same moral imperative could be directed towards building collaborative efforts to address HIV/AIDS, basic cancer research, and possibly other critical issues. Hopefully, it will be.
But when the moral imperative is removed, there are significant problems with this approach in terms of the way both our scientific and R&D systems are set up.
For example, research funding and academic tenure are largely based on one’s original research (and publishing). If one spent three years doing research, putting the basic data ‘out there’, another researcher may be able to draw conclusions from that data, and publish based on it. In such a case, the original researcher would only be mentioned as ‘contributing’. Under our current system, this would lend nothing towards advancing his/her career, either in terms of achieving tenure or obtaining research funding.
It isn’t entirely selfish on the part of the researcher. His/her ability to do any real work is based on tenure and funding.
Of course, the hurdles against companies R&D units sharing data don’t even need to be explained.
In other words, the system is set up to prevent this kind of collaboration. And it’s very unfortunate, because it could be applied to so many other problems we face now. Maybe it’s time to rethink the system.
An excellent seed, and one that made me think. Thanks!
For example, research funding and academic tenure are largely based on one’s original research (and publishing).
Thanks PR, your comment clarifies and expands on my comment #1.5
This rivalry and need for secrecy in research has been going on for centuries. There are many incidents in history where the wrong scientist got credit for a discovery.
Although there are ways to protect one from direct plagiarism, as you state in your comment "another researcher may be able to draw conclusions from that data, and publish based on it. In such a case, the original researcher would only be mentioned as ‘contributing’." how many times has THAT happened?!
I'm glad the article gave you food for thought, and thank you for your input.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
