Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clinical Trials in Japan are conducted much less stringently than those conducted here in the US. Even Japanese pharmaceutical companies prefer to run their Clinical Trials in Europe or the US.
Yes and I and yes I get it. You just give more credit to peer reviewed then I do and on that topic we will never agree.
I does not matter to me what you want to believe. I am just trying to help you understand the world of science.
Peer Review is very important. It's how we scrutinize scientists who make claims. It's how we stop pseudo-science from being claimed as science. That being said, peer review is not the one true solution for all time, and given the ever-increasing digitization of scientific communication, it would be foolish to think that no better solution can ever emerge to the problem of filtering scientific information.
I agree with everything this former Nature editor is saying.
Quote:
I believe that the impressive rate of scientific progress over the past few decades is in part a tribute to the effectiveness of the current peer review system. The bar for any new alternative should thus be set fairly high. I suggest that any new system should meet the following criteria:
It must be reliable - it must predict the significance of a paper with a level of accuracy comparable to or better than the current journal system.
It must produce a recommendation that is easily digestible, allowing busy scientists to make quick decisions about what to read. A nuanced commentary on the merits and demerits of each paper may be valuable to experts who have already read the paper (see contribution to this debate by Koonin et al. ), but it will not help much with the initial screening.
It must be economical, not only in terms of direct costs such as web operations, but also in terms of reviewer time invested.
It must work fast. The peer review system produces clear-cut decisions relatively quickly (in part because editors pester reviewers to deliver their reports), whereas many forms of communal assessment - such as the emergence of a statistically significant pattern of citations or expert recommendations - are likely to be slow and gradual by comparison. Perhaps a popularity index (for example a 'most emailed' list) would provide a quick readout, but there is a danger of runaway amplification - the so-called 'Matthew effect', recognized by Robert Merton almost 40 years ago4 and likely to be exacerbated in the era of digital communication
It must be resistant to 'gaming' by authors. Of course, savvy authors already know how to work the current system, but the separation of powers between editors and anonymous reviewers does - I believe - preserve some integrity to the process. After ten years as an editor, one thing I feel sure of is that if any alternative system becomes influential in determining career success, authors will seek ways to manipulate it to their advantage
As I posted I get why sometimes peer reviewed is needed you just place more importance on it then me and we will never agree.
I place more importance on it compared to what? You are being vague here.
More importance on it to weed out pseudo-science? Because that's really the only importance I place on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie
Nanotech has been around but not to the degree it will be post 2030 or the nanotech revolution.
Can you define what you mean buy Nanotech revolution?
There are no revolutions in science only major breakthroughs and discoveries. You know the kind of discoveries that earn the Nobel Laureate a Nobel Prize.
BTW: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in its 2006 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, argues that it is difficult to predict the future capabilities of nanotechnology.
Don't you find it interesting that the only people who don't appreciate peer review are those who are not scientists? Interesting how that pans out.
Now wait 14 years as it will revolutionize medicine.
LOL It already has. We are way past that stage.
It's been around since the 80's and you really don't think there are some very revolutionary applications that are already being used in Medicine today?
I suggest you read those two papers I posted. The first one is an easy read.
It's been around since the 80's and you really don't think there are some very revolutionary applications that are already being used in Medicine today?
I suggest you read those two papers I posted. The first one is an easy read.
I looked at them. My point is by the 2030's it will be thousands of times more advanced then now and that is why we will merge with it and its impact on medicine will be profound. Then it will be the third bridge and will get us to the 4th bridge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
