 |
Search misc.fitness.weights |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
misc.fitness.weights -> Re: lyle mcdougal--diet plagiarist?
There are 21 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 20.
|
Author: JMWDate: 19:52 16-11-06
|
|
DZ <18073@563225034.1465021551.11688.16424.31134> wrote:
>Proctologically Violated wrote:
>> If I talk about glutamine in the cell-death response, or the
>> pharmacologic effects of high protein, a degree isn't gonna make me
>> right or wrong, is it?
>
>I think there is leap of faith in your glutamine argument. Also, how
>does its plasma concentration depend on the amount of protein intake?
>A rough rule is that for "dispensable" amino acids it appears not to
>follow the same, intuitively expected, pattern as that for the
>essential (threonine being an exception) -
>
>"Glutamine, glycine, alanine, taurine, and threonine concentrations
>were distinctly higher (~30% or greater) throughout the 24-h period in
>subjects consuming the normal- vs. the high-protein diets."
>
>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/5/E857
And as to "cell death response," a couple of in vitro studies showed
that glutamine actually inhibited apoptosis in colonic epithelial
cells and in neutrophils. (Sorry, Curt, you'll just have to Google
those.)
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 12:52 17-11-06
|
|
Still reading abstracts from pubmed?
Have a fukn clue as to what the studies were actually about? Why did they
pick glutamine, for example?
Would you like to play a game, johnny, where you and me both read the study,
and we compare notes?
Just how come, as a legal beagle, albeit a 3-legged one, you cain't provide
the cites? Too busy looking up people's credentials, I mean, non-existent
credentials?
Howzdat grafitti case goin?
Conversely yours,
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote in message
news:2n1ql213q08v3prn4f057o1q3320jq6k58@4ax.com...
> DZ <18073@563225034.1465021551.11688.16424.31134> wrote:
>
>>Proctologically Violated wrote:
>>> If I talk about glutamine in the cell-death response, or the
>>> pharmacologic effects of high protein, a degree isn't gonna make me
>>> right or wrong, is it?
>>
>>I think there is leap of faith in your glutamine argument. Also, how
>>does its plasma concentration depend on the amount of protein intake?
>>A rough rule is that for "dispensable" amino acids it appears not to
>>follow the same, intuitively expected, pattern as that for the
>>essential (threonine being an exception) -
>>
>>"Glutamine, glycine, alanine, taurine, and threonine concentrations
>>were distinctly higher (~30% or greater) throughout the 24-h period in
>>subjects consuming the normal- vs. the high-protein diets."
>>
>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/5/E857
>
> And as to "cell death response," a couple of in vitro studies showed
> that glutamine actually inhibited apoptosis in colonic epithelial
> cells and in neutrophils. (Sorry, Curt, you'll just have to Google
> those.)
>
|
|
|
|
Author: JMWDate: 13:53 17-11-06
|
|
Proctologically Violated=A9=AE wrote:
> Still reading abstracts from pubmed?
Nope. Full articles.
> Have a fukn clue as to what the studies were actually about?
Yes.
> Why did they
> pick glutamine, for example?
They noticed that glutamine deprivation led to reduction in intestinal
mucosa. They also noticed that neotrophils and other autoimmune cells
utilized a lot glutamine, in addition to glucose.
> Would you like to play a game, johnny, where you and me both read the stu=
dy,
> and we compare notes?
Feel free to play all the games you wish. It's your nature. You'll
have to understand if I refuse to play along.
> you cain't provide=20
> the cites? =20
Find 'em yourself. I managed.
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 14:30 17-11-06
|
|
Let's see--a reduction in "intestinal mucosa"--IN VITRO!!!
Just *how* did dey do dat?? goodgawd....
Gee, that sounds like a plan. goodgawd, more fukn junk science, coupled w/
likely a junk interpretation.
C'mon johnny, let's play, pleeeeze.....
You read the full article, right? You're fulla fukn shit.
Professors doing research, citing these articles for their own research,
don't read the full article, you lying sack of shit.
You couldn't even provide the fukn abstract of the article you cited for
BodyBuilder. Why, copy and paste too much for you? Or you jes wanted to
sound smart again.
Yeah, if you posted the abstract, everyone would realize you cain't even
read right.
You're right. Let's not play. You're too stupid, AND character disordered.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163789625.813606.34870@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Still reading abstracts from pubmed?
Nope. Full articles.
> Have a fukn clue as to what the studies were actually about?
Yes.
> Why did they
> pick glutamine, for example?
They noticed that glutamine deprivation led to reduction in intestinal
mucosa. They also noticed that neotrophils and other autoimmune cells
utilized a lot glutamine, in addition to glucose.
> Would you like to play a game, johnny, where you and me both read the
> study,
> and we compare notes?
Feel free to play all the games you wish. It's your nature. You'll
have to understand if I refuse to play along.
> you cain't provide
> the cites?
Find 'em yourself. I managed.
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 14:32 17-11-06
|
|
Posting on Akron's time again, or is this your 1/2 hour lunch, on your
laptop, on your phoneline?
Hmmmmm......
Hello, Akron? Did you know........
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163789625.813606.34870@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Still reading abstracts from pubmed?
Nope. Full articles.
> Have a fukn clue as to what the studies were actually about?
Yes.
> Why did they
> pick glutamine, for example?
They noticed that glutamine deprivation led to reduction in intestinal
mucosa. They also noticed that neotrophils and other autoimmune cells
utilized a lot glutamine, in addition to glucose.
> Would you like to play a game, johnny, where you and me both read the
> study,
> and we compare notes?
Feel free to play all the games you wish. It's your nature. You'll
have to understand if I refuse to play along.
> you cain't provide
> the cites?
Find 'em yourself. I managed.
|
|
|
|
Author: JMWDate: 17:37 17-11-06
|
|
Proctologically Violated=A9=AE wrote:
> Let's see--a reduction in "intestinal mucosa"--IN VITRO!!!
> Just *how* did dey do dat??
"Dey do dat?" Are those the language skills taught at the universities
that awarded you all those degrees? And which universities were those?
But to answer the question you appear to be asking with a mentally
handicapped accent, the researchers DID NOT observe "a reduction in
'intestinal mucosa'--IN VITRO!!!" But that wasn't the question you
asked, was it? The question you asked was:
"Why did they pick glutamine, for example?"
And the answer was:
"They noticed that glutamine deprivation led to reduction in intestinal
mucosa."
As to the findings of their further study, you'll have to research that
for yourself. All I have heard you do is blather and bluster, just
like Neal Fabian used to do with his faux expertise. When asked to
produce references, you, like Fabian, come up empty-handed. Let's see
if you know how to do it.
When someone with a legitimate background in the subject matter and a
genuine interest in discourse asks me (Dmitri, for instance), I usually
do cite the articles. You have failed to establish that you possess
either one.
> You read the full article, right? You're fulla fukn shit.
I skimmed the articles and got what I needed. The answers to your
questions were right in the introduction, as they should be.
> Professors doing research, citing these articles for their own research,
> don't read the full article, you lying sack of shit.
<sigh> You're quite a sad, bitter, little man, aren't you? Perhaps
you don't know any competent professors.
> You couldn't even provide the fukn abstract of the article you cited for
> BodyBuilder. Why, copy and paste too much for you?
> Yeah, if you posted the abstract, everyone would realize you cain't even
> read right.
Ah, what a sad little man you are! I realize that you are experiencing
insurmountable difficulties in performing research, so -- just this
once -- I'll point you to the full article:
http://www.ms-se.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/msse/media/0202.pdf
You'll find the relevant information on page 370 under the heading
"Muscular Hypertrophy." If you need any help with the big words,
please let me know.
I hope that helps you better deal with your anger and frustration.
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 15:29 18-11-06
|
|
"JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163803052.056533.310300@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Let's see--a reduction in "intestinal mucosa"--IN VITRO!!!
> Just *how* did dey do dat??
"Dey do dat?" Are those the language skills taught at the universities
that awarded you all those degrees? And which universities were those?
But to answer the question you appear to be asking with a mentally
handicapped accent, the researchers DID NOT observe "a reduction in
'intestinal mucosa'--IN VITRO!!!" But that wasn't the question you
asked, was it?
-----------------
Actually, it was.
You had stated these were a cupla in vitro studies. Go read yer post.
-----------------
The question you asked was:
"Why did they pick glutamine, for example?"
And the answer was:
"They noticed that glutamine deprivation led to reduction in intestinal
mucosa."
-------------------
But you cited delayed apoptosis.
Glutamine deprivation?? But glutamine is not an essential aa.
Among other things, likely too subtle for you.
-----------------
As to the findings of their further study, you'll have to research that
for yourself. All I have heard you do is blather and bluster, just
like Neal Fabian used to do with his faux expertise. When asked to
produce references, you, like Fabian, come up empty-handed. Let's see
if you know how to do it.
-----------------
You never asked me for refs!
But you are right, I generally don't/won't/can't produce any. Alladat
shit's up in the attic AND I'm fairly pyooter illiterate.
Plus, there is often not a real point, since most research is junk research.
Textbooks are actually the vehicles of consensus, including info that's
generally 5-10 years old, but which has withstood scrutiny/time.
Review arts are not a bad way to go, as I suspect texts rely on those
heavily.
But citations of an article here, an article there is for amateurs, esp when
99/100 amateurs will cite the article out of context.
Determining "true" consensus scientific view is an arduous task. The fact
that it is in fact a consensus is in itself a little disturbing.
Remember Cold Fusion.
One of the big hot shot puhfessuhs insisted he proved cold fusion was
correct. I told him he was fullashit--he dint know it takes *trillion watt*
lasers to ignite a fusion reaction, and you still don't break even,
energy-wise.
But you already know all of this, right?
So how'd you come up w/ the full article from Med & Sci? You subscribe?
Blew someone who is subscribed?
--------------------------
When someone with a legitimate background in the subject matter and a
genuine interest in discourse asks me (Dmitri, for instance), I usually
do cite the articles. You have failed to establish that you possess
either one.
-------------------
Why a legitimate background? Are you like forming an exclusisve club, or
sumpn?
What is your background in this, btw?
Why not just talk to interested people?
-----------------------
> You read the full article, right? You're fulla fukn shit.
I skimmed the articles and got what I needed. The answers to your
questions were right in the introduction, as they should be.
-------------
Ahh, but you said you read the whole thing. Read yer post.
--------------
> Professors doing research, citing these articles for their own research,
> don't read the full article, you lying sack of shit.
<sigh> You're quite a sad, bitter, little man, aren't you? Perhaps
you don't know any competent professors.
---------------
Competent professors are very hard to find.
I'm 6'0", pissed, not bitter. Tough not being able to sit down w/o an air
pillow.
------------------
> You couldn't even provide the fukn abstract of the article you cited for
> BodyBuilder. Why, copy and paste too much for you?
> Yeah, if you posted the abstract, everyone would realize you cain't even
> read right.
Ah, what a sad little man you are! I realize that you are experiencing
insurmountable difficulties in performing research, so -- just this
once -- I'll point you to the full article:
http://www.ms-se.com/pt/pt-core/template-journal/msse/media/0202.pdf
You'll find the relevant information on page 370 under the heading
"Muscular Hypertrophy." If you need any help with the big words,
please let me know.
I hope that helps you better deal with your anger and frustration.
-------------
I DO have near-insurmountable difficulties performing research!!
Excellent article!
When I finish it, I'll explain it to you.
And I hope you are learning to use your professional vocabulary more
correctly.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
|
|
|
|
Author: EatMeDate: 20:31 18-11-06
|
|
Proctologically Violated=A9=AE wrote:
> Let's see--a reduction in "intestinal mucosa"--IN VITRO!!!
> Just *how* did dey do dat?? goodgawd....
>
> Gee, that sounds like a plan. goodgawd, more fukn junk science, coupled =
w/
> likely a junk interpretation.
>
> C'mon johnny, let's play, pleeeeze.....
>
> You read the full article, right? You're fulla fukn shit.
> Professors doing research, citing these articles for their own research,
You lost me there, chowderhead. Working as I do in medical institution
(no, not a place for you to cop a quick huff) I must ask you if you
even have the slightest clue (do you? I think not) what the f* a "peer
reviewed journal" is and what it means to have published an article in
one means.
It means putting your nutsack on the block chowederhead and letting all
your peers in the field, and not some little pansy NYC wanna-be, have a
swing.
Got that clue now, numbnuts? It ain't junk science, and if you truly
think so then WTF are you doing here? Go do your own research.
|
|
|
|
Author: ShuteDate: 03:23 19-11-06
|
|
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:53:43 -0500, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>I'd have a tough time competing against your idiocy, MonkeyBoy. As
>Cohen has previously noted, yours is truly legendary.
Your getting logic from Cohen? You must be truly desperate.
>And since you decided to start some shit, maybe I'll comment on some
>of your writings that I intended to ignore, like this one:
Oh come on John. You have just been too busy harassing others. Why
between stalking that PV guy and Hudson you must be all burnt out.
Did you ever get out those orders of cease and desist to John's family
members? How sweet.
>"I ran across a few articles suggesting lat pulldowns paled in
>comparison to chin and pullups. I started thinking about some people
>at the gym who could move serious weight on the lat pulldown and they
>all do pullups."
>
>Duh! So this just now occurred to Shute, the self-appointed
>resistance training expert? Let us know when you can get your chin
>over the bar after adding a little extra iron to the weight of your
>fat ass.
Well Pete asked "Whats the difference?" when someone said they where
more effective than pulldowns. I suppose you think he is an idiot
too. I never proclaimed to be an expert. Someone would have to pay me
for that to be the case. Your the one that thinks your so damn smart.
He is your response to someone who built a routine exactly as you
suggested:
"That's not a bad routine. It's just geared more toward strength and
neuromuscular patterning for maximal lifts than it is toward muscular
hypertrophy. At this point, that may actually be the better answer
for
you, even if you don't HYOOOOOGE quite as quickly."
So you tell him it is wrong for a bunch of reasons he probably doesn't
understand. Then you tell that is o.k because he doesn't wan to get
that big anyway. Gee that is great to tell some skinny kid just
starting out lifting.
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 03:25 19-11-06
|
|
There is essentially no such thing as peer review.
Correction:
There is peer review, but it doesn't mean anything, because it is tantamount
to peer-circle jerk.
What are you, jmw's boy?
There are so many non sequiturs in your post, it's pointless to respond,
really.
Peer review wasn't even the issue.
What does your working in a hospital have to do with anything? What do you
do there?
But,
Peer review is actually a very interesting *political* process. Everybody
is watching their ass.
I've seen it in action. My "mentor" (as they call them--really
bullshit--"slavedriver" is more like it) had his stomach in knots when asked
to review a submission. It was all politics, what lab was the guy connected
to, who sponsored the research, repercussions, blah blah.
And it's worse now.
There was a very interesting article in a mathematical journal, commenting
on the state of peer review even within very narrow fields of mathematics.
This article did not comment on the politics, but on the sheer magnitude,
voluminousness, and esotericness of research, and concluded that peer
review, *in mathematic specialties* was a sham, because of time, volume,
expertise, and some other stuff I forgot.
A stunning article, actually.
The NYTimes has had numerous articles on the state of science, from which
even a layman (a literate layman, which would exclude but another resident
cocksucker here like Eatme) would conclude that sumpn ain't right in them
thar hills of academia.
As I mentioned elsewhere, Peter Medawar had scathing things to say about the
publishing process in science, etc.
But, because your dumb fukn ass works in a hospital, YOU know about peer
review.
Go suck some doctor's dick.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"EatMe" <trollsblow@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163899862.091539.324790@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> Let's see--a reduction in "intestinal mucosa"--IN VITRO!!!
> Just *how* did dey do dat?? goodgawd....
>
> Gee, that sounds like a plan. goodgawd, more fukn junk science, coupled
> w/
> likely a junk interpretation.
>
> C'mon johnny, let's play, pleeeeze.....
>
> You read the full article, right? You're fulla fukn shit.
> Professors doing research, citing these articles for their own research,
You lost me there, chowderhead. Working as I do in medical institution
(no, not a place for you to cop a quick huff) I must ask you if you
even have the slightest clue (do you? I think not) what the f* a "peer
reviewed journal" is and what it means to have published an article in
one means.
It means putting your nutsack on the block chowederhead and letting all
your peers in the field, and not some little pansy NYC wanna-be, have a
swing.
Got that clue now, numbnuts? It ain't junk science, and if you truly
think so then WTF are you doing here? Go do your own research.
|
|
|
|
Author: DZDate: 04:45 19-11-06
|
|
Proctologically Violated wrote:
> There is essentially no such thing as peer review.
> Correction:
> There is peer review, but it doesn't mean anything, because it is tantamount
> to peer-circle jerk.
...
> Peer review is actually a very interesting *political* process. Everybody
> is watching their ass.
> I've seen it in action. My "mentor" (as they call them--really
> bullshit--"slavedriver" is more like it) had his stomach in knots when
asked
> to review a submission. It was all politics, what lab was the guy connected
> to, who sponsored the research, repercussions, blah blah.
> And it's worse now.
Sometimes I peer-review once a week, sometimes once a month. That is
not something anyone is required to do, and it's best looked at as a
volunteer activity. The way I see it, the process is straightforward
and does not involve politics that I'm aware of.
The authors don't know reviewer's name, unless he wants them to. But
most of the time reviewers don't disclose their names, even when they
write a positive review. Authors themselves can make a request to be
anonymized as well (in some journals it's a default). Some journals
even suggest a particular proxy server to hide your IP when you access
the author's web site for things like supplemental material.
As a reviewer, I just tell the editor and the authors what the
strengths, the weaknesses, the errors, and my particular suggestions
are. I suppose a reviewer could request something silly like that the
authors should cite his work, but the editor will see that, and it
would not look good at all.
> There was a very interesting article in a mathematical journal, commenting
> on the state of peer review even within very narrow fields of mathematics.
> This article did not comment on the politics, but on the sheer magnitude,
> voluminousness, and esotericness of research, and concluded that peer
> review, *in mathematic specialties* was a sham, because of time, volume,
> expertise, and some other stuff I forgot.
Good journals reject majority of submissions (even when only one of
the reviews is so-so) with a notice that the work cannot be
resubmitted to this journal. If I submit to a good journal, I expect
the paper to be torn apart, and then a lengthy, very difficult process
with no guarantee of publication even after what looked like a
successful round of revisions. Sometimes reviewers would suggest
things that would take months of work, and I'd be tempted to give
up. Dealing with this process is the hardest part. I'm not
complaining, it's just that I see the process as quite rigorous.
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 12:28 19-11-06
|
|
Thank you for sharing some of the brunt.
I fear, tho, that jmw is indefatigable.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:s740m2ho5ptq0v7jt59mh3uct92d2ed9ij@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:53:43 -0500, JMW
> <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd have a tough time competing against your idiocy, MonkeyBoy. As
>>Cohen has previously noted, yours is truly legendary.
>
> Your getting logic from Cohen? You must be truly desperate.
>
>>And since you decided to start some shit, maybe I'll comment on some
>>of your writings that I intended to ignore, like this one:
>
> Oh come on John. You have just been too busy harassing others. Why
> between stalking that PV guy and Hudson you must be all burnt out.
> Did you ever get out those orders of cease and desist to John's family
> members? How sweet.
>
>>"I ran across a few articles suggesting lat pulldowns paled in
>>comparison to chin and pullups. I started thinking about some people
>>at the gym who could move serious weight on the lat pulldown and they
>>all do pullups."
>>
>>Duh! So this just now occurred to Shute, the self-appointed
>>resistance training expert? Let us know when you can get your chin
>>over the bar after adding a little extra iron to the weight of your
>>fat ass.
>
> Well Pete asked "Whats the difference?" when someone said they where
> more effective than pulldowns. I suppose you think he is an idiot
> too. I never proclaimed to be an expert. Someone would have to pay me
> for that to be the case. Your the one that thinks your so damn smart.
> He is your response to someone who built a routine exactly as you
> suggested:
>
> "That's not a bad routine. It's just geared more toward strength and
> neuromuscular patterning for maximal lifts than it is toward muscular
> hypertrophy. At this point, that may actually be the better answer
> for
> you, even if you don't HYOOOOOGE quite as quickly."
>
> So you tell him it is wrong for a bunch of reasons he probably doesn't
> understand. Then you tell that is o.k because he doesn't wan to get
> that big anyway. Gee that is great to tell some skinny kid just
> starting out lifting.
>
>
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 13:03 19-11-06
|
|
You would be spell-bound by that article in the mathematics journal, and
frankly, I can't imagine how I even came across it, altho I proly saved it
someplace. I believe it was from the 80's, don't know if googling "peer
review in mathematics" would retrieve anything. Maybe you have access to
some on-line stuff that could retrieve it.
Their point was, tho, that even though well-intended, the process is/was
inherently flawed--that it was highly questionable if peer-reviewers were
even *capable* of a valid review.
And ultimately, peer-review CANNOT tell whether a result is correct or not.
It can only say whether the peer-under-review properly jumped through the
generally-accepted hoops or not.
It serves as a *very rough sieve*.
Yeah, it will weed out assholes claiming perpetual motion, and others w/
2-page proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, but look at the *crush* of
peer-reviewed material that never makes it into textbooks. Look at Cold
Fusion!
And, depending depending, it will also deny publication to stuff that
eventually has been vindicated. Many examples of that, which of course I
can't cite right off, but I think one of them was the proton pump.
And I'm not saying to get rid of peer review, because, well, there is
basically no other choice--right now.
But the fear among peer reviewers is, If I fuck this guy, might he, or his
friends, fuck ME later?
You say there is anonymity. Maybe in your field there is. Generally, tho,
this is not the "real" case, cuz, basically in these small communities,
everybody knows everybody, very few secrets. It's diplomacy.
You don't think the emerging grad student from Kendal's lab here at Columbia
U. isn't going to get "better" peer-review than some schmo from City College
up the block??
It's already happened. I can tell you a hilarious story from the Daily
News, precisely about this.
As to the process being rigorous:
Getting elected to office is a rigorous process. :)
Although I sometimes lambast professions w/ a broad brush, here is the real
statistical deal:
Science, like anything else, is a statistical process, w/ it's own mean,
standard deviations, etc.
*By definition of the bell curve*, near 50% of what you read in peer-review
is "below average". And near-50% is above average. A small fraction is
really good stuff.
We need all this science, studies, etc. as a sort of shotgun effect, cuz
*someone* out there's gotta be right. So we have to endure all the crap
that's either wrong, irrelevant, or fraudulent.
And this assumes a *symmetric* bell curve. Statistical curves don't have to
be symmetrical (iirc), and the case could actually be much worse. As in the
case of lawyers.
But the principle is the same.
And the moral to the story is that just cuz sumpn is peer-reviewed don't
make it right.
Just because sumpn is not peer reviewed don't make it wrong.
And most assholes reading this stuff, esp. the abstract, don't understand it
anyway.
Most science, as per the bell curve, is "factory science", people grinding
shit out to keep dey jobs.
Hey, everybody's gotta feed their kids.
Some of it is in fact junk science.
Whatever, it's an arduous task to sift through it all.
Charles made some excellent points, with which Peter Medawar, and many
others who watched fuknWatson rob Linus Pauling of his 3rd nobel, would
agree.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"DZ" <27244@127718299.1676631990.3438.4089.27047> wrote in message
news:18583@2913020437.40778875.7952.24195.14179... />
> Proctologically Violated wrote:
>> There is essentially no such thing as peer review.
>> Correction:
>> There is peer review, but it doesn't mean anything, because it is
>> tantamount
>> to peer-circle jerk.
> ...
>> Peer review is actually a very interesting *political* process.
>> Everybody
>> is watching their ass.
>> I've seen it in action. My "mentor" (as they call them--really
>> bullshit--"slavedriver" is more like it) had his stomach in knots
when
>> asked
>> to review a submission. It was all politics, what lab was the guy
>> connected
>> to, who sponsored the research, repercussions, blah blah.
>> And it's worse now.
>
> Sometimes I peer-review once a week, sometimes once a month. That is
> not something anyone is required to do, and it's best looked at as a
> volunteer activity. The way I see it, the process is straightforward
> and does not involve politics that I'm aware of.
>
> The authors don't know reviewer's name, unless he wants them to. But
> most of the time reviewers don't disclose their names, even when they
> write a positive review. Authors themselves can make a request to be
> anonymized as well (in some journals it's a default). Some journals
> even suggest a particular proxy server to hide your IP when you access
> the author's web site for things like supplemental material.
>
> As a reviewer, I just tell the editor and the authors what the
> strengths, the weaknesses, the errors, and my particular suggestions
> are. I suppose a reviewer could request something silly like that the
> authors should cite his work, but the editor will see that, and it
> would not look good at all.
>
>> There was a very interesting article in a mathematical journal,
>> commenting
>> on the state of peer review even within very narrow fields of
>> mathematics.
>> This article did not comment on the politics, but on the sheer magnitude,
>> voluminousness, and esotericness of research, and concluded that peer
>> review, *in mathematic specialties* was a sham, because of time, volume,
>> expertise, and some other stuff I forgot.
>
> Good journals reject majority of submissions (even when only one of
> the reviews is so-so) with a notice that the work cannot be
> resubmitted to this journal. If I submit to a good journal, I expect
> the paper to be torn apart, and then a lengthy, very difficult process
> with no guarantee of publication even after what looked like a
> successful round of revisions. Sometimes reviewers would suggest
> things that would take months of work, and I'd be tempted to give
> up. Dealing with this process is the hardest part. I'm not
> complaining, it's just that I see the process as quite rigorous.
>
|
|
|
|
Author: DZDate: 15:24 19-11-06
|
|
Proctologically Violated wrote:
> You would be spell-bound by that article in the mathematics journal, and
> frankly, I can't imagine how I even came across it, altho I proly saved it
> someplace. I believe it was from the 80's, don't know if googling "peer
> review in mathematics" would retrieve anything. Maybe you have access to
> some on-line stuff that could retrieve it.
>
> Their point was, tho, that even though well-intended, the process is/was
> inherently flawed--that it was highly questionable if peer-reviewers were
> even *capable* of a valid review.
> And ultimately, peer-review CANNOT tell whether a result is correct or not.
> It can only say whether the peer-under-review properly jumped through the
> generally-accepted hoops or not.
> It serves as a *very rough sieve*.
>
> Yeah, it will weed out assholes claiming perpetual motion, and others w/
> 2-page proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, but look at the *crush* of
> peer-reviewed material that never makes it into textbooks. Look at Cold
> Fusion!
>
> And, depending depending, it will also deny publication to stuff that
> eventually has been vindicated. Many examples of that, which of course I
> can't cite right off, but I think one of them was the proton pump.
> And I'm not saying to get rid of peer review, because, well, there is
> basically no other choice--right now.
>
> But the fear among peer reviewers is, If I fuck this guy, might he, or his
> friends, fuck ME later?
>
> You say there is anonymity. Maybe in your field there is. Generally, tho,
> this is not the "real" case, cuz, basically in these small communities,
> everybody knows everybody, very few secrets. It's diplomacy.
Perhaps some of what you say are rhetoric exaggerations. No community
is sufficiently small. You would often get some of the reviewers
completely outside of the field, people that the editor asked to
comment on specific parts of the work. I once reviewed for Med and Sci
in Sports and Exercise, which is not my area despite my daily going to
the gym. In a case like that there is a mutual understanding with the
editor that your comments are, say, on just the statistical part. But
if reviewer's name is recognized by what he says in an anonymous
review, kudos to him, as he seems to have established himself.
More importantly, the "fear" of offending somebody is really not the
driving factor, and in fact you often see BS being called by its name
at face-to-face scientific meetings. There is a well-recognized
theoretical biology group that is known for inviting scientists to
give long evening seminars at their place with the purpose of not only
to hear about the research that others are doing, but for a very much
guaranteed outright slaughtering of the speaker. I remember a huge
German guy shaking like a little girl before his talk, and a well
known professor almost crying after the following embarrassing
incident: he mentioned a detail in the model that was convincingly
pointed out to be incorrect by someone in the audience. The professor
replied "but I've been doing that for years". That followed by an
outburst of laughter from the audience. Better know what you're
talking about.
> You don't think the emerging grad student from Kendal's lab here at
> Columbia U. isn't going to get "better" peer-review than some schmo
> from City College up the block??
Not from me. How could I possibly gain from being biased that way in
the review? Not that I'd do it anyway. I also fully expect my
colleagues to look at the substance of the work. There are scientists
who claim that their work is ALWAYS turned down unfairly, but I
suspect the problem is elsewhere.
I'd say a more extreme thing. In science, in 5 to 10 years after the
graduation it is completely irrelevant where one has received his
degree. Everything is judged by the work he's done. Sometimes talented
young scientists publish in low impact journals, which not
surprisingly has the effect of boosting the journal impact
factor. Since all of the stuff is now online, the importance of top
rank journals is not as great as before. People will find good papers
no matter where they are published.
> It's already happened. I can tell you a hilarious story from the Daily
> News, precisely about this.
> As to the process being rigorous:
> Getting elected to office is a rigorous process. :)
>
> Although I sometimes lambast professions w/ a broad brush, here is the real
> statistical deal:
>
> Science, like anything else, is a statistical process, w/ it's own mean,
> standard deviations, etc.
> *By definition of the bell curve*, near 50% of what you read in peer-review
> is "below average". And near-50% is above average. A small fraction is
> really good stuff.
>
> We need all this science, studies, etc. as a sort of shotgun effect, cuz
> *someone* out there's gotta be right. So we have to endure all the crap
> that's either wrong, irrelevant, or fraudulent.
>
> And this assumes a *symmetric* bell curve. Statistical curves don't have to
> be symmetrical (iirc), and the case could actually be much worse.
>
> And the moral to the story is that just cuz sumpn is peer-reviewed don't
> make it right.
> Just because sumpn is not peer reviewed don't make it wrong.
I don't see any problem that there is variation in quality. Bad papers
aren't cited and that is the punishment. Like you wrote, 50% of papers
are below the average by definition (or below the median for "any
shape" distribution). I understand science as a cumulative affair. A
good paper doesn't need to "prove" anything. In IJ Good's version of
philosophy of science, researchers simply shift odds of competing
hypotheses as they collect new imperfect knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 15:59 19-11-06
|
|
I don't say discard the peer-review process.
And indeed, the citation index is a sort of Darwinian force. OK.
But then look at Microsoft. Microsoft has, according to some, decimated the
state of software.
In nature, it's often not the stronger of the litter that survives, but the
ones that were born *first*, especially eggs in birds' nests.
Thank god for Apple. :)
Citations are not dissimilar, creating their own tyranny. I'll bet 99% of
the top-cited articles come from big-assed labs, big institutions. Pure
quality? I wonder.
But, by your own vignette, doesn't that tell you something of the mindset of
these people?
Almost sounds like roomful of jmw's/TBRs.
What that suggests to me is that you have a community of brite bullying
assholes, who on the one hand will use 'correctness" as a legitimate weapon,
but on the other hand, perhaps surruptitious means to sabotage a competitor,
as another weapon.
This was a big issue in the lab I was in, to the point where no details were
to be discussed even with other faculty members, except those we were
begging and borrowing from.
I would say that overall, yeah, the good stuff does rise to the top of the
heap, but man, what a struggle, and not always.
And again, not to extrapolate from but one point, but look at Cold Fusion.
Look at what Watson did to Pauling. And you are aware that Pauling was
*literally MINUTES away from deducing the structure of DNA*. Watson knew
this. Ergo the hijacking of Franklins data.
And look at the cholesterol fraud--almost incomprehensible. Anyone w/ even
a rudimentary understanding of the etiology of atherosclerosis knows
cholesterol is not the issue. And a growing school of MDs is ballyhooing
about, and able to demonstrate the cooked statistics behind all this.
I'm glad your experiences are good with the process. Mebbe it's better in
your field. But many accomplished people rue the process, have said so in
writing. Not just the spilt-milk people.
But grok this, and I *know* you know this to be true.
Researchers gotta eat.
It's a big big deal to switch "research lines".
For example, Researcher A does metallo-enzyme studies w/, say, zinc. Spose
it's hard to get funding for zinc-based shit, or it's out of vogue, results
are thin, whatever....
So his grad student sez, Hey, let's switch to copper. (wadn't me, btw)
You realize that this is a major major MAJOR shift of research. Just from
zinc to copper.
Which means sed researcher *cain't* switch from zinc to copper, so's he's
gotta stick w/ zinc.
So what does he do?
He looks at inhibition studies w/ substance A; then substance B, then
subtance C; the A+C, then A+B; the B+C; then more A, less C; You see it in
nutrition studies all the time. Hey, let's look at the insulin spike w/
cottage cheese and brussel sprouts; then, lowfat cottage cheese w/ blanched
brussel sprouts....
Each one a different study.
C'mon, gimme a break....
OK, not true all the time, some labs are better funded, and can make
transitions, do more significant/fundamental work, but you know what I'm
saying.
Ergo, all the goddamm bullshit in print.
The real issue, imo, is how to ferret through it all. Very difficult, very
arduous.
Also, I'm not saying that good research is not often *plainly evident* to a
reviewer, or that bullshit is not plainly evident.
But according to my non-existent cite, even in a field like mathematics,
where these problems should be *fewer* than in other fields, the issue is
crippling.
According to that paper. I gotta drum it up for you. Man, where to begin?
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"DZ" <5710@1576529943.1073123503.29555.24776.3297> wrote in message
news:4318@216431324.2272115257.17114.25255.22651... />
> Proctologically Violated wrote:
>> You would be spell-bound by that article in the mathematics journal, and
>> frankly, I can't imagine how I even came across it, altho I proly saved
>> it
>> someplace. I believe it was from the 80's, don't know if googling "peer
>> review in mathematics" would retrieve anything. Maybe you have access to
>> some on-line stuff that could retrieve it.
>>
>> Their point was, tho, that even though well-intended, the process is/was
>> inherently flawed--that it was highly questionable if peer-reviewers were
>> even *capable* of a valid review.
>> And ultimately, peer-review CANNOT tell whether a result is correct or
>> not.
>> It can only say whether the peer-under-review properly jumped through the
>> generally-accepted hoops or not.
>> It serves as a *very rough sieve*.
>>
>> Yeah, it will weed out assholes claiming perpetual motion, and others w/
>> 2-page proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, but look at the *crush* of
>> peer-reviewed material that never makes it into textbooks. Look at Cold
>> Fusion!
>>
>> And, depending depending, it will also deny publication to stuff that
>> eventually has been vindicated. Many examples of that, which of course I
>> can't cite right off, but I think one of them was the proton pump.
>> And I'm not saying to get rid of peer review, because, well, there is
>> basically no other choice--right now.
>>
>> But the fear among peer reviewers is, If I fuck this guy, might he, or
>> his
>> friends, fuck ME later?
>>
>> You say there is anonymity. Maybe in your field there is. Generally,
>> tho,
>> this is not the "real" case, cuz, basically in these small
communities,
>> everybody knows everybody, very few secrets. It's diplomacy.
>
> Perhaps some of what you say are rhetoric exaggerations. No community
> is sufficiently small. You would often get some of the reviewers
> completely outside of the field, people that the editor asked to
> comment on specific parts of the work. I once reviewed for Med and Sci
> in Sports and Exercise, which is not my area despite my daily going to
> the gym. In a case like that there is a mutual understanding with the
> editor that your comments are, say, on just the statistical part. But
> if reviewer's name is recognized by what he says in an anonymous
> review, kudos to him, as he seems to have established himself.
>
> More importantly, the "fear" of offending somebody is really not the
> driving factor, and in fact you often see BS being called by its name
> at face-to-face scientific meetings. There is a well-recognized
> theoretical biology group that is known for inviting scientists to
> give long evening seminars at their place with the purpose of not only
> to hear about the research that others are doing, but for a very much
> guaranteed outright slaughtering of the speaker. I remember a huge
> German guy shaking like a little girl before his talk, and a well
> known professor almost crying after the following embarrassing
> incident: he mentioned a detail in the model that was convincingly
> pointed out to be incorrect by someone in the audience. The professor
> replied "but I've been doing that for years". That followed by an
> outburst of laughter from the audience. Better know what you're
> talking about.
>
>> You don't think the emerging grad student from Kendal's lab here at
>> Columbia U. isn't going to get "better" peer-review than some schmo
>> from City College up the block??
>
> Not from me. How could I possibly gain from being biased that way in
> the review? Not that I'd do it anyway. I also fully expect my
> colleagues to look at the substance of the work. There are scientists
> who claim that their work is ALWAYS turned down unfairly, but I
> suspect the problem is elsewhere.
>
> I'd say a more extreme thing. In science, in 5 to 10 years after the
> graduation it is completely irrelevant where one has received his
> degree. Everything is judged by the work he's done. Sometimes talented
> young scientists publish in low impact journals, which not
> surprisingly has the effect of boosting the journal impact
> factor. Since all of the stuff is now online, the importance of top
> rank journals is not as great as before. People will find good papers
> no matter where they are published.
>
>> It's already happened. I can tell you a hilarious story from the Daily
>> News, precisely about this.
>> As to the process being rigorous:
>> Getting elected to office is a rigorous process. :)
>>
>> Although I sometimes lambast professions w/ a broad brush, here is the
>> real
>> statistical deal:
>>
>> Science, like anything else, is a statistical process, w/ it's own mean,
>> standard deviations, etc.
>> *By definition of the bell curve*, near 50% of what you read in
>> peer-review
>> is "below average". And near-50% is above average. A small fraction
is
>> really good stuff.
>>
>> We need all this science, studies, etc. as a sort of shotgun effect, cuz
>> *someone* out there's gotta be right. So we have to endure all the crap
>> that's either wrong, irrelevant, or fraudulent.
>>
>> And this assumes a *symmetric* bell curve. Statistical curves don't have
>> to
>> be symmetrical (iirc), and the case could actually be much worse.
>>
>> And the moral to the story is that just cuz sumpn is peer-reviewed don't
>> make it right.
>> Just because sumpn is not peer reviewed don't make it wrong.
>
> I don't see any problem that there is variation in quality. Bad papers
> aren't cited and that is the punishment. Like you wrote, 50% of papers
> are below the average by definition (or below the median for "any
> shape" distribution). I understand science as a cumulative affair. A
> good paper doesn't need to "prove" anything. In IJ Good's version of
> philosophy of science, researchers simply shift odds of competing
> hypotheses as they collect new imperfect knowledge.
>
|
|
|
|
Author: DZDate: 19:43 19-11-06
|
|
Proctologically Violated wrote:
> I don't say discard the peer-review process.
> And indeed, the citation index is a sort of Darwinian force. OK.
>
> But then look at Microsoft. Microsoft has, according to some, decimated the
> state of software.
> In nature, it's often not the stronger of the litter that survives, but the
> ones that were born *first*, especially eggs in birds' nests.
> Thank god for Apple. :)
> Citations are not dissimilar, creating their own tyranny. I'll bet 99% of
> the top-cited articles come from big-assed labs, big institutions. Pure
> quality? I wonder.
Yes, good articles tend to come from good places. But I think that's
how it would be even in the ideal world, because
(1) Talented scientists are able to choose to work in institutions
reputable for the tradition of delivering top-notch research.
(2) Once employed by a reputable institution, a talented scientist
joins an intellectually stimulating environment of the best in the
field that leads to better quality publications.
The segregation of institutions by quality is inevitable, and I see it
as a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 03:13 20-11-06
|
|
Except when it starts being manipulated. Big University = Big Bidniss.
Big Pharm, inyone? 650 lobbyists in DC, paid almost .5 mil each.
When there are only 550 legislators in DC.
When was the last time anyone here went to dinner w/ their legislator?
Can you spell, Lipitor, boyzngerlz?
I wonder what peer-review went into DAT shit.
Your legislator can spell Lipitor, cuz he's likely got lotsa stock in it.
And he may very well be peer-reviewing research.
Well, peering, at any rate. And pressuring.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"DZ" <29988@1267220539.3079826839.18797.10621.9717> wrote in message
news:30723@2866315182.107114142.13072.21733.10469... />
> Proctologically Violated wrote:
>> I don't say discard the peer-review process.
>> And indeed, the citation index is a sort of Darwinian force. OK.
>>
>> But then look at Microsoft. Microsoft has, according to some, decimated
>> the
>> state of software.
>> In nature, it's often not the stronger of the litter that survives, but
>> the
>> ones that were born *first*, especially eggs in birds' nests.
>> Thank god for Apple. :)
>> Citations are not dissimilar, creating their own tyranny. I'll bet 99%
>> of
>> the top-cited articles come from big-assed labs, big institutions. Pure
>> quality? I wonder.
>
> Yes, good articles tend to come from good places. But I think that's
> how it would be even in the ideal world, because
>
> (1) Talented scientists are able to choose to work in institutions
> reputable for the tradition of delivering top-notch research.
>
> (2) Once employed by a reputable institution, a talented scientist
> joins an intellectually stimulating environment of the best in the
> field that leads to better quality publications.
>
> The segregation of institutions by quality is inevitable, and I see it
> as a good thing.
>
|
|
|
|
Author: DZDate: 13:24 20-11-06
|
|
Proctologically Violated wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> Yes, good articles tend to come from good places. But I think that's
>> how it would be even in the ideal world, because
>>
>> (1) Talented scientists are able to choose to work in institutions
>> reputable for the tradition of delivering top-notch research.
>>
>> (2) Once employed by a reputable institution, a talented scientist
>> joins an intellectually stimulating environment of the best in the
>> field that leads to better quality publications.
>>
>> The segregation of institutions by quality is inevitable, and I see it
>> as a good thing.
>
> Except when it starts being manipulated. Big University = Big Bidniss.
> Big Pharm, inyone? 650 lobbyists in DC, paid almost .5 mil each.
> When there are only 550 legislators in DC.
> When was the last time anyone here went to dinner w/ their legislator?
> Can you spell, Lipitor, boyzngerlz?
> I wonder what peer-review went into DAT shit.
> Your legislator can spell Lipitor, cuz he's likely got lotsa stock in it.
> And he may very well be peer-reviewing research.
> Well, peering, at any rate. And pressuring.
I did research at bigpharm for a fair number of years, mostly on
genetic predisposition to side effects and diseases. My position
reached the professional ceiling. I always wanted to know just how I
could be coerced into biasing my output. Many of my coauthors remain
to be from bigpharm. If anything, it is harder to publish if you have
industry affiliation. The stereotype of an industry scientist in
academia is that you didn't have brains to do research in a genuine
research institution. Mind you, when you submit papers, reviewers and
editors are likely to be from academia. I still expect the judgment
to be fair, but certainly not preferential treatment. I left because I
wanted undivided time to sort out some more basic problems of my own
interest that piled up. Like the tongue-in-cheek 12-tone saying goes,
"There is still plenty of music to be written in C-major" -
http://base.google.com/base_media?q=hand6037374117930759688&size=1
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 14:49 20-11-06
|
|
Although I loathe Big Pharm and a what a lot of industry engenders, the
scientists who work in these places are very often, perhaps almost always
top notch.
They may not have the free reign academics do, but there is a distinct hell
in academia as well.
Such as teaching. Assholes like jmw would proly enjoy teaching/parading,
but it really does take its own toll.
I knew a few industry researchers who turned down academic appointments, and
a few who were woo'ed, big time, given whole *floors* + instant tenure in a
university, and semi-regretted leaving, in this case, Bell Labs (laser
optics).
Tenure turns most who get it into academic welfare cases. Very few actually
dignify the privilege.
The assholes where I was at fixed it so their hourly wage for actually
*working*, which was only 9 hours of teaching/wk, since most didn't do a
lick of research, was over $260+/hr. Perty pleased wit deyselves dey wuz.
There was an interesting book on the Institute for Advanced Study, sumpn
bout a vacant chair, forgot the title. Painted a very interesting picture
of all this--basically a pasture for brite cows, tremendous in-fighting,
bullshit, not unlike that seminar you described. Weird.
Feynman (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman) had a bit to say about this as
well, not great things about academia either. And I'm sure others.
One of the best was the NYTimes magazine section story on EJ Corey's Lab
(forgot where, mebbe Columbia), whose main graduate student *committed
suicide*! (a grad student is really some professor's bitch--I know I was).
Now, I don't care iffin yer average is a D, bruh. You come out of EJ Coreys
lab, w/ a letter of rec from EJ hisself, and you can walk into *any lab in
the world* and you TELL THEM what you want to be paid!
No negotiation, no bullshit, you simply write yer expected salary on a slip
of paper, and dats what you will get. + perks.
But he committed suicide, which aired a bit of the dirty laundry in this
whole bullshit academic process.
Me, I took the other approach: border-line homicide. :)
Was really touch-and-go for a while. :) :)
Would be interesting to see the stats on industry-research vs. academic
research, what has yielded the most fruit. Without a doubt, most of the
silly junk research comes from academia, the typical "The effect of
a,b,c,d,e,f,g but not h on Y". And then "a,b,c,d,e,f,g, AND h on Y".....
But likely more of the fraudulent Lipitor stuff comes from industry.
I suspect tho that the real cutting edge stuff, like Shockley's transistor
(Bell Labs?), lasers (also Bell labs???) came from industry.
But certainly good shit came from academia. The proton pump, lac-operon
hypothesis, Kreb, all of that was from universities, iirc. And always the
question: HTF did they figger dat shit out?????
Maybe the generalization could be made thusly: Seminal applied stuff (no
perjorative in "applied" here) comes from industry, seminal theoretical
useful stuff comes from academia.
JMW: But you couldn't hack it now, could you?
PV: Dats right. Had a migraine for 5 fukn years.
But I admire those who can hack it, and who do a good job. Not an easy
thing. No room for writer's block.
Saw Suzanne Somers and her bitch Wiley on bio-identical hormone therapy (her
book, Ageless--yeah, w/ more implants in lips than I have fat on my ass), on
Larry King last nite, argering w/ other docs and industry people. What a
hoot.
I think Somers won. Goodgawd.....
What a g-d embarrassment, that science has let itself come to this, at least
as concerns the public.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"DZ" <28682@1544018181.1640528744.18180.11046.18565> wrote in message
news:20021@1052420318.37155630.22693.31153.5697... />
> Proctologically Violated wrote:
>> DZ wrote:
>>> Yes, good articles tend to come from good places. But I think that's
>>> how it would be even in the ideal world, because
>>>
>>> (1) Talented scientists are able to choose to work in institutions
>>> reputable for the tradition of delivering top-notch research.
>>>
>>> (2) Once employed by a reputable institution, a talented scientist
>>> joins an intellectually stimulating environment of the best in the
>>> field that leads to better quality publications.
>>>
>>> The segregation of institutions by quality is inevitable, and I see it
>>> as a good thing.
>>
>> Except when it starts being manipulated. Big University = Big Bidniss.
>> Big Pharm, inyone? 650 lobbyists in DC, paid almost .5 mil each.
>> When there are only 550 legislators in DC.
>> When was the last time anyone here went to dinner w/ their legislator?
>> Can you spell, Lipitor, boyzngerlz?
>> I wonder what peer-review went into DAT shit.
>> Your legislator can spell Lipitor, cuz he's likely got lotsa stock in it.
>> And he may very well be peer-reviewing research.
>> Well, peering, at any rate. And pressuring.
>
> I did research at bigpharm for a fair number of years, mostly on
> genetic predisposition to side effects and diseases. My position
> reached the professional ceiling. I always wanted to know just how I
> could be coerced into biasing my output. Many of my coauthors remain
> to be from bigpharm. If anything, it is harder to publish if you have
> industry affiliation. The stereotype of an industry scientist in
> academia is that you didn't have brains to do research in a genuine
> research institution. Mind you, when you submit papers, reviewers and
> editors are likely to be from academia. I still expect the judgment
> to be fair, but certainly not preferential treatment. I left because I
> wanted undivided time to sort out some more basic problems of my own
> interest that piled up. Like the tongue-in-cheek 12-tone saying goes,
> "There is still plenty of music to be written in C-major" -
> http://base.google.com/base_media?q=hand6037374117930759688&size=1
>
|
|
|
|
Author: Proctologically Violated©®Date: 18:42 20-11-06
|
|
Oh yeah...
Most industry researchers would function *very* well in academia, altho they
may or may not be happy, and may or may not be great at getting funding,
dept. politics, etc. 80%, as a guess.
But I suspect that *very few* of these cocksuckers in academia could
function in industry, so that they could keep their jobs. 20%, as a guess.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Proctologically Violated©®" <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net>
wrote in
message news:gFn8h.656$_p3.77@newsfe10.lga...
> Although I loathe Big Pharm and a what a lot of industry engenders, the
> scientists who work in these places are very often, perhaps almost always
> top notch.
> They may not have the free reign academics do, but there is a distinct
> hell in academia as well.
> Such as teaching. Assholes like jmw would proly enjoy teaching/parading,
> but it really does take its own toll.
> I knew a few industry researchers who turned down academic appointments,
> and a few who were woo'ed, big time, given whole *floors* + instant tenure
> in a university, and semi-regretted leaving, in this case, Bell Labs
> (laser optics).
>
> Tenure turns most who get it into academic welfare cases. Very few
> actually dignify the privilege.
> The assholes where I was at fixed it so their hourly wage for actually
> *working*, which was only 9 hours of teaching/wk, since most didn't do a
> lick of research, was over $260+/hr. Perty pleased wit deyselves dey wuz.
>
> There was an interesting book on the Institute for Advanced Study, sumpn
> bout a vacant chair, forgot the title. Painted a very interesting picture
> of all this--basically a pasture for brite cows, tremendous in-fighting,
> bullshit, not unlike that seminar you described. Weird.
> Feynman (Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman) had a bit to say about this as
> well, not great things about academia either. And I'm sure others.
>
> One of the best was the NYTimes magazine section story on EJ Corey's Lab
> (forgot where, mebbe Columbia), whose main graduate student *committed
> suicide*! (a grad student is really some professor's bitch--I know I
> was).
> Now, I don't care iffin yer average is a D, bruh. You come out of EJ
> Coreys lab, w/ a letter of rec from EJ hisself, and you can walk into *any
> lab in the world* and you TELL THEM what you want to be paid!
> No negotiation, no bullshit, you simply write yer expected salary on a
> slip of paper, and dats what you will get. + perks.
> But he committed suicide, which aired a bit of the dirty laundry in this
> whole bullshit academic process.
> Me, I took the other approach: border-line homicide. :)
> Was really touch-and-go for a while. :) :)
>
> Would be interesting to see the stats on industry-research vs. academic
> research, what has yielded the most fruit. Without a doubt, most of the
> silly junk research comes from academia, the typical "The effect of
> a,b,c,d,e,f,g but not h on Y". And then "a,b,c,d,e,f,g, AND h on
Y".....
> But likely more of the fraudulent Lipitor stuff comes from industry.
>
> I suspect tho that the real cutting edge stuff, like Shockley's transistor
> (Bell Labs?), lasers (also Bell labs???) came from industry.
> But certainly good shit came from academia. The proton pump, lac-operon
> hypothesis, Kreb, all of that was from universities, iirc. And always the
> question: HTF did they figger dat shit out?????
>
> Maybe the generalization could be made thusly: Seminal applied stuff (no
> perjorative in "applied" here) comes from industry, seminal theoretical
> useful stuff comes from academia.
>
> JMW: But you couldn't hack it now, could you?
> PV: Dats right. Had a migraine for 5 fukn years.
>
> But I admire those who can hack it, and who do a good job. Not an easy
> thing. No room for writer's block.
>
> Saw Suzanne Somers and her bitch Wiley on bio-identical hormone therapy
> (her book, Ageless--yeah, w/ more implants in lips than I have fat on my
> ass), on Larry King last nite, argering w/ other docs and industry people.
> What a hoot.
> I think Somers won. Goodgawd.....
> What a g-d embarrassment, that science has let itself come to this, at
> least as concerns the public.
> --
> ------
> Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
>
> Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
> Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
> Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
> to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
> The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
>
> entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
> all d'numbuhs
>
> "DZ" <28682@1544018181.1640528744.18180.11046.18565> wrote in
message
> news:20021@1052420318.37155630.22693.31153.5697... />
>> Proctologically Violated wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>> Yes, good articles tend to come from good places. But I think that's
>>>> how it would be even in the ideal world, because
>>>>
>>>> (1) Talented scientists are able to choose to work in institutions
>>>> reputable for the tradition of delivering top-notch research.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Once employed by a reputable institution, a talented scientist
>>>> joins an intellectually stimulating environment of the best in the
>>>> field that leads to better quality publications.
>>>>
>>>> The segregation of institutions by quality is inevitable, and I see it
>>>> as a good thing.
>>>
>>> Except when it starts being manipulated. Big University = Big Bidniss.
>>> Big Pharm, inyone? 650 lobbyists in DC, paid almost .5 mil each.
>>> When there are only 550 legislators in DC.
>>> When was the last time anyone here went to dinner w/ their legislator?
>>> Can you spell, Lipitor, boyzngerlz?
>>> I wonder what peer-review went into DAT shit.
>>> Your legislator can spell Lipitor, cuz he's likely got lotsa stock in
>>> it.
>>> And he may very well be peer-reviewing research.
>>> Well, peering, at any rate. And pressuring.
>>
>> I did research at bigpharm for a fair number of years, mostly on
>> genetic predisposition to side effects and diseases. My position
>> reached the professional ceiling. I always wanted to know just how I
>> could be coerced into biasing my output. Many of my coauthors remain
>> to be from bigpharm. If anything, it is harder to publish if you have
>> industry affiliation. The stereotype of an industry scientist in
>> academia is that you didn't have brains to do research in a genuine
>> research institution. Mind you, when you submit papers, reviewers and
>> editors are likely to be from academia. I still expect the judgment
>> to be fair, but certainly not preferential treatment. I left because I
>> wanted undivided time to sort out some more basic problems of my own
>> interest that piled up. Like the tongue-in-cheek 12-tone saying goes,
>> "There is still plenty of music to be written in C-major" -
>> http://base.google.com/base_media?q=hand6037374117930759688&size=1
>>
>
>
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact | Fitness
|
|
|
