|
|
 |
|
Reply
| | | Message 2 of 2 in Discussion |
|
I think the content in nutrition/medical science only matters if the results are quick and comprehensible to ordinary people like if you take a poison and die. Then the "experts" must stick to the facts. Otherwise they can play whichever game they like if they serve it in an interesting or dramatic manner to the public. Of course money is a big factor influencing the direction. Chronic diseases which take decades to develop and are also influenced by individual genetic susceptibility are the best targets with most ambiguity. Also what I am finding is that most of the scientists are just ordinary "drones" which follow the direction/dogmas a few leaders pointed out and never try to doubt them.
The only exception may be the antiaging research because most of the scientists in this field don't do it for money and they have to be concerned with long term results to have any success. If such a complex "disease" like aging is the main subject the researchers cannot focus on a single protein/process or set of markers but they must see the organism as a whole and study it from all possible angles and take into account all the processes interconnections.
The evaluation system based on the publication/citation index is also flawed especially in the modern computer age when it's so easy to copy-paste publish. With the huge number of papers produced many experts rarely read past the Abstracts and don't deeply understand the things they are making decisions about. Everyone around me is just hunting for the numbers of papers not concerned about the real contents and practical meanings. The only criteria for the results is to be accepted for publication what depends on the favor of a limited number of experts, the dogma makers ... |
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
