MEDICAL MATTERS

[Sue]

...I know these articles have to appear up-beat to keep the research money flowing in...

Having been a research scientist I can tell you that research funding depends on grant applications and they have to be truthful and objective. You don't get a grant for being `upbeat'.

If the population is immunised then how can you get a further immune response? The current vaccines are only showing temporary protection that appears to get shorter with each dose of vaccine.

Vaccines don't necessarily prevent you being infected with the target virus, their main job is to protect you against serious illness. If they do offer some protection against initial infection that's a bonus. Immunisation isn't a case of `all or nothing' and that applies to the individual and the population.

Thank you Tiz. My 48 year old son in law did not get a permanent job until he was 46. For 24 years he had to put in a submission and apply for a new research grant every 2 years. No good submission, no valid research meant no job and no mortgage. It had to be good It had to be valid. Thankfully after 24 years he got a permanent post at the same place as project manager. All paperwork now he says and no longer the really nail biting interesting stuff. Not medicine but agriculture but the same applies anywhere. My daughter was in a similar position researching protein extraction and function in cells. Luckily hers was a permanent job till Brexit. She bailed out before the German Company did.

[Tizer]

I'm glad they both came out OK, Sue. After my PhD I got a postdoc job on a big international project where we had about a dozen PhD students in our University labs. I soon found there was no time for me to do any real research, all my time was taken up on reports to the international granting bodies. At least I got the chance to present a short paper to the Royal Sociey but soon bailed out and went into industrial research. But I still had to write submissions for in-house funding for projects, then the company decided its research centre shouldn't depend on its own cash and told us to seek funding from government research councils! After many years of this I resigned and, with Mrs Tiz, set up our own small publishing business. Then I only had to ask Mrs Tiz for funding, haha!

[Sue]

I'm glad they both came out OK, Sue. After my PhD I got a postdoc job on a big international project where we had about a dozen PhD students in our University labs. I soon found there was no time for me to do any real research, all my time was taken up on reports to the international granting bodies. At least I got the chance to present a short paper to the Royal Sociey but soon bailed out and went into industrial research. But I still had to write submissions for in-house funding for projects, then the company decided its research centre shouldn't depend on its own cash and told us to seek funding from government research councils! After many years of this I resigned and, with Mrs Tiz, set up our own small publishing business. Then I only had to ask Mrs Tiz for funding, haha!

In our son in laws case I just always find it shocking that someone with a 4 year applied degree, a year working on a farm and PhD in such an important subject area could not find permanent employment and spent almost 24 years employed on 2 -3 year research contracts. Our daughter, following 4 year applied Biology degree with medical research, her MRes at Manchester, her PhD at Liverpool and research fellowship at the university of Wisconsin, was employed as technical support for a number of research establishments by a German Company, providing help in setting up research programmes and interpreting results. Her PhD was in proteomics and the work was only done by three laboratories in the world. She worked in two of them . But with Brexit she was asked to cover other peoples specialisms, as people left. She was not a microbiologist and never wanted to be so. She now works at Coventry University on something entirely different. Good for her sanity but a great loss to protein science in my unbiased opinion

[Stanley]

Reading the above posts reminds me of how bad 'the market' is at managing pure research. You can make a good case for saying it should all be be government funded as a public good.

[Sue]

Reading the above posts reminds me of how bad 'the market' is at managing pure research. You can make a good case for saying it should all be be government funded as a public good.

That could result in government control about what is researched.

[Stanley]

I knew there would be a flaw! In that case, put Sue and Peter in charge of selection......

[Tizer]

For a start I'd ban all attempts to send humans to other planets, moons and asteroids and use the money instead to solve the many problems here on Earth! I already have a backer - the Astronomer Royal.

[Sue]

I knew there would be a flaw! In that case, put Sue and Peter in charge of selection......

More money into any medical research, I would ban AI and manipulation of genes in human gametes

[PanBiker]

I would ban AI

Unfortunately Sue AI is like nuclear energy and the bombs, Pandora's box is already open.

[Sue]

I would ban AI

Unfortunately Sue AI is like nuclear energy and the bombs, Pandora's box is already open.

I know and that worries me. It was only a hypothetical answer and it will never happen. Government sponsored useful scientific Research! Pie in the sky.

[plaques]

Government sponsored useful scientific Research! Pie in the sky.

They already do it by out sourcing and using 'Consultants' to get their guidance. These Consultants often have multiple interests which are never declared and may be looking at short term profits rather than the long term interests of the country. Our 'Civil Service' used to be on the top of these projects but now with cut backs in the name of efficiency the in house expertise is lost. Out sourcing to 'expert' consultants often means that nobody is responsible for failures, Dare I say Track and Trace as a recent example.

[Tripps]

Let's combine AI with Government funded research. I think at first glance, it's quite a good balanced answer.


Tripps Should all scientific research be Government funded as a public good? (As Stanley proposes).


ChatGPT

The question of whether all scientific research should be government-funded as a public good is a complex and debated topic. There are arguments both in favor and against complete government funding. Here are some points to consider:

Arguments for government funding:

Advancement of knowledge: Government-funded research can support scientific discovery and innovation, contributing to the overall advancement of knowledge in society. This can lead to breakthroughs in various fields, including medicine, technology, and environmental sciences.

Long-term benefits: Scientific research often requires significant investment and may not yield immediate commercial benefits. Government funding can provide the necessary resources and stability to support long-term research projects that may have societal benefits but are not immediately profitable.

Addressing societal challenges: Government-funded research can focus on addressing societal challenges such as public health, climate change, poverty, and sustainable development. These areas may not attract sufficient private investment due to their long-term nature or lack of profitability.

Accessible outcomes: When research is publicly funded, there is often an expectation that the outcomes and knowledge generated will be made freely available to the public. This can help ensure that scientific knowledge is accessible to all and not limited by commercial interests.

Arguments against government funding:

Limited resources: Governments have limited financial resources, and fully funding all scientific research may strain public budgets. Allocating funds to research means diverting resources from other important areas like education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social welfare.

Potential biases: Government funding can introduce biases in research priorities, favoring certain fields or projects that align with political agendas. This may limit the exploration of diverse scientific topics or hinder research that challenges prevailing ideologies.

Lack of market-driven efficiency: Private funding often relies on market forces, where investors allocate resources based on potential profitability. This approach may lead to more efficient allocation of funds, as it encourages competition and innovation while ensuring research with market demand receives support.

Balancing priorities: Government-funded research must strike a balance between fundamental scientific research and research that directly addresses societal needs. Funding decisions may be influenced by political considerations, potentially impacting the freedom of scientific inquiry.

In reality, many countries adopt a mixed model of funding, where both government and private funding play significant roles in supporting scientific research. This approach allows for a diversity of funding sources and helps balance the advantages and disadvantages associated with each approach.

Ultimately, the decision on the extent of government funding for scientific research depends on societal values, priorities, and available resources.

[Sue]

Government sponsored useful scientific Research! Pie in the sky.

They already do it by out sourcing and using 'Consultants' to get their guidance. These Consultants often have multiple interests which are never declared and may be looking at short term profits rather than the long term interests of the country. Our 'Civil Service' used to be on the top of these projects but now with cut backs in the name of efficiency the in house expertise is lost. Out sourcing to 'expert' consultants often means that nobody is responsible for failures, Dare I say Track and Trace as a recent example.

I think Stanley was referring to all research. I am well aware of these arguments and that some research is government sponsored, and I said that was not a good idea. You have changed a hypothetical discussion, taking my reply ,a tongue in cheek reply, out of context.

[plaques]

I think Stanley was referring to all research. I am well aware of these arguments and that some research is government sponsored, and I said that was not a good idea. You have changed a hypothetical discussion, taking my reply ,a tongue in cheek reply, out of context.

The opening line referencing your post wasn't intended as an adverse comment but meant to highlight sponsoring within the 'Consultancy' framework. I think Tripp's ChatGPT reply just about sums it up. (see below)

The question of whether all scientific research should be government-funded as a public good is a complex and debated topic. There are arguments both in favor and against complete government funding. Here are some points to consider:

Actually I wasn't thinking about any specific research projects government sponsored or privately sponsored but trying to point out somewhat clumsily that if a government keeps outsourcing research without having the in house ability to keep a check and an understanding of what is going on then the result is often absolute failure. Climate change and green energy supply are two long term investments that individual companies could never afford. High risk ventures would also fit into a category that requires government support. Why for instance are we delaying rejoining the 'Horizon project.

Sorry for any possible upset.

[Stanley]

It's a complicated discussion and totally understandable if occasionally responses seem to cross each other.
I can shoot my own argument down by saying that the governments treatment of just two matters demonstrates why they shouldn't be in charge of anything more complicated than being Ink Monitor....... Energy Policy and taking action on future pandemics.

[Sue]

I think Stanley was referring to all research. I am well aware of these arguments and that some research is government sponsored, and I said that was not a good idea. You have changed a hypothetical discussion, taking my reply ,a tongue in cheek reply, out of context.

The opening line referencing your post wasn't intended as an adverse comment but meant to highlight sponsoring within the 'Consultancy' framework. I think Tripp's ChatGPT reply just about sums it up. (see below)

The question of whether all scientific research should be government-funded as a public good is a complex and debated topic. There are arguments both in favor and against complete government funding. Here are some points to consider:

Actually I wasn't thinking about any specific research projects government sponsored or privately sponsored but trying to point out somewhat clumsily that if a government keeps outsourcing research without having the in house ability to keep a check and an understanding of what is going on then the result is often absolute failure. Climate change and green energy supply are two long term investments that individual companies could never afford. High risk ventures would also fit into a category that requires government support. Why for instance are we delaying rejoining the 'Horizon project.

Sorry for any possible upset.

Apology accepted. I just feel that you often respond to my posts as if I know nothing. After 50 + years studying, working in and with science as well as teaching it, I just may have picked up one or two things.

With the subjects and on the courses I taught I insisted my students were well researched in both the negative and positive sides of any argument/ discussion before reaching their own conclusions. I still try to do that. When teaching on BTEC and ADULT Access courses to Higher Education this frequently involved referring tp present day research. Admittedly I don’t keep up to date on everything now a days, and cannot as some issues are now very complex indeed. I don’t even understand the language now in many topic as there seems to be a move towards using letters and numbers to refer to things. But if a subject captures my interest I will delve deeply until I can really get to grips with it, to the best of my ability.

Medical Biology, and modern biological sciences have been my life and continue to excite me with each new discovery. I feel these sciences are often under rated, under valued and misunderstood. I have spent years trying to explain Biology is not natural history, is not traditional zoology and botany as thought of in the 18 th and 19th century but is a progressive , exciting , and very very difficult subject to fully understand.

I find many discussions on this and the covid forum do not take this in to account but tend to explain complex with simple and do not accept that answers change by the day. There are suggestions of cover ups, manipulation of information , changing things to suit the situation. These may happen but often research is moving at such a pace the information is out of date before it is even published. The classic example being the validity of wearing masks during covid.I knew one research scientist who likened research to crossing a river with stepping stones. You can only go forward if the correct stones are there, sometimes they even disappear. You can’t always go backwards either as the stones may have been swept away, so you have to find a different route, often not stable

I thought I was having a light hearted discussion with Tiz and Stanley about what we would allow research in if Tiz and I controlled the choices. It was lighthearted. Instead it became political again. I did not want a political discussion. I wanted a bit of a laugh. Once again I felt my opinion, in this case light hearted, was considered naive and ill informed. I am not always right, of course I am not, but I have a huge thirst for knowledge. I love learning. The loves of my life are medical biological topics and history. I studied one for a lifetime, the and it still excites me by its unlimited opportunities if used wisely the other I am just beginning to delve into. But if there is one subject I do not like it is politics. Sorry

[Sue]

Rant over. You make some good points but the list for essential research, that is not and will not be government funded is never ending. As I said pie in the sky

[Tizer]

I sympathise with you Sue. I gave up posting in the Politics thread. Like you, I have a life-long thirst for knowledge and love of learning and don't want it polluted by politics and I don't want to be in an echo chamber. I now have little faith in our Western style representative democracy, it's in decline and - although I don't like the prospect I think more authoritarian models will win out in the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, back to medical matters. I post this here because it's related to eating disorders but it could also have gone, perhaps, in the computers thread. Some days ago I mentioned my initial experience with an AI chatbot when looking for geology information. Superficially it looked good but when I looked closer it had errors. Not language errors but erroneous assumptions and conclusions, so this report doesn't surprise me. One day the AI chabots might be useful but we've a long way to go yet...
`Eating disorder group pulls chatbot sharing diet advice' BBC

[Tripps]

Lighten up everyone - please.

[Cathy]

Ditto

[plaques]

I just feel that you often respond to my posts as if I know nothing

Sue sorry if I gave that impression. As a layman I know nothing about the complex medicines/biology and as such I rely on others for the insight that I lack. As my late pal used to say. " I'm just an aging nut strangler" (engineer). Also I tend to follow Tripp's advice on Occam's razor unfortunately my data base on known facts is so short that I'm deep into suppositions and guessing.

Please keep on with your research findings they are valuable to me and many others who read your posts.

I'll try to take Tripp's advice and lighten up but my Boris Karloff DNA runs a bit deep.

[Sue]

I just feel that you often respond to my posts as if I know nothing

Sue sorry if I gave that impression. As a layman I know nothing about the complex medicines/biology and as such I rely on others for the insight that I lack. As my late pal used to say. " I'm just an aging nut strangler" (engineer). Also I tend to follow Tripp's advice on Occam's razor unfortunately my data base on known facts is so short that I'm deep into suppositions and guessing.

Please keep on with your research findings they are valuable to me and many others who read your posts.

I'll try to take Tripp's advice and lighten up but my Boris Karloff DNA runs a bit deep.

[Stanley]

My slight indisposition yesterday was a spell of high blood pressure that made me feel dizzy. I suspect i hadn't been drinking enough. it was soon back to normal. I shall be careful today!

[Tizer]

My dizzy spells are due to low blood glucose and I always carry jelly babies because they can be chewed and give `instant relief' (as marketing people would say!)

[Stanley]

That could have been my problem.... I have done BP as part of the 7 day readings for the surgery blood test. 123/73 so not a big problem this morning.....