* Eubulides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>posted: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16954 <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16954>
In Science in the Private Interest..."
Dear Eubilides - thanks, an interesting article. No solutions (perhaps naturally). Some factual errors - regarding the restoration of Dr Olivera's reputation. In any of this, as any trooper knows, "mud sticks". This has definitely happened to Dr.O. It did not help that her red flag on the drug - was not corroborated after (as far as I know the later literature). This has tended to obscure the generic message.
More worrying is the lack of solutions in a situation where the trend for scientists to be forced into an un-seemly and dirty bed with the companies is growing. The reality is that: i) Peer funding is getting harder & harder; ii) Research that in a prior day could have been done on a shoe string & good will, is pretty difficult nowadays; iii) Universities are simultaneously demanding more publications & in "better" journals; & begin cut off at the knees in terms of state funding.
An obvious impasse. Richard Horton shows the problem well. But he does remain somewhat 'agnostic' on the solutions. He is a little more forthcoming in person, but even with a few G&T's was cautious! The solution - well - as a Ml-ist I hesitate to say the obvious!
It is in truth, a very difficult situation. & the intense competition at all the 'usual' agencies is getting virtually impossible. Only 15% of applications to the Canadian Inst Hlth Res will get funded. I know the NIH is about as bad, if not worse.
Wonder what the reformists on the list would proffer as solutions?
Hari Kumar
