Neuroscience Research Photos (Still no Science Forum)

Great photos. Wonder when the Science forum will be up and running? Keep plugging away Bags

Goodness, those pics. are quite fascinating.

A request for a Science Forum from me, too. I had a very poor and limited education in this field and thoroughly enjoy learning and exploring any science posts that are made.

A science forum would be brilliant! add my plug for one.

Scientists might like this from Ben Goldacre - he's a brave man indeed.
tiny.cc/kd1ulw

We have a Science Forum! Yabbadabbadooooo..

I listened to that speech a few days ago, jane. He certainly makes telling remarks!

bags the whole of NICE guidance and Department of Health policy (aka rationing) is now based on 'evidence'.
So where does that leave us when the evidence is selective and flawed?
I once heard a (dental) professor say that evidence was all very well, but sometimes clinicians had to make a leap of faith for their patients, ie use clinical judgment.
The problem is that medicine is increasingly dictated to by politicians and accountants, and adherence to targets and guidelines overrides clinical judgement, partly because of concerns about cost-effectiveness and partly because of fears of litigation.
But if I had a serious illness I would want my clinician to make that leap of faith.
Ben Goldacre's bravery is that he is challenging the whole edifice of the NHS as well as his profession.
Sorry bags I didn't mean to hijack the thread
I was very impressed with the pictures

' leap of faith' jane tut tut wash your mouth out - don't you know you are on a science thread

(Ducks and runs)

Pleased to see a Science Forum up and running.

I've only come across the TED talks in the past couple of years; they are certainly engaging and informative lectures.

That was a joke by the way. And I love the pictures bags

nightowl
I think the answer is that medicine (and allied professions) are, or should be, a combination of art and science.
The science of knowledge and the art of understanding and proper application of scientific principles

jane I like your response. As someone with a social science education (not respected by either science or arts) I hope you won't mind if I plagiarise it for future use

I think I'd say a comination of clinical professionalism (the art of it) and science, jane.

Love the joke, nightowl

Further, jane, I don't think Goldacre would knock the scientific method. Yes, science is sometimes (often?) flawed, but if scientists stick with the scientific method, in time those flaws will be corrected. That is the beauty of science. When it is discovered that some 'belief' is wrong, you discard it in favour of a better one. I think jess would back me up on that and maybe say it a bit better too.

So, yes, I'm all for science being challenged. And if doctors think the cirrent state of knowledge is inadequate for their needs, which I'm sure it often is (we don't know everything by a long chalk), of course they must use their professional judgement based on experience and so forth.

current state...

I agree bags, I don't think he was criticising scientific method, more the journals which choose to publish only positive results and so give a biased picture of outcomes. He was talking about research into drugs and of course most of such research is funded by the drug companies.
So we have the situation where NHS policies about which drugs can be used, is based on evidence from research funded by those self-same companies which stand to gain by having their products recommended by NICE.
That would be alright, if the results of all the trials were published. But according to BG, they aren't - a research paper is much more likely to be published if it shows a positive result, ie a significant number of patients benefited. If someone else repeats the trial, and patients are shown not to benefit, it's unlikely that the research will get published.
So policies are based on flawed evidence and big pharma is laughing all he way to the bank. Far be it from me to suggest that editors of learned journals might also be profiting.
nightowl feel free

Success stories are more interesting than negative ones (unless they are spectacular disasters) and editors of scientific journals are as susceptible as any others to the "newsworthiness" of the reports they receive.

What is needed are publishers who will show ALL reports, warts and all - but doea anyone have time to read everything about every study and evaluate its significance? And there will always be popular newspapers which play up the "miracle cures" far more loudly than the "damp squibs".