Slashdot Mirror

Here's a more deeply thought-out perspective from a respected biologist (and one of my professors). He discusses a similar reproducibility study done at Amgen. It turns out that the several significant variables were altered in the "reproductions," and some of the experiments weren't successful for unrelated reasons (bad knockdowns). TFA covers a reproducibility study looking at just five papers in one narrow field - then uses this sample to draw broad conclusions about "science" in general. It's about as valid as similar articles making similar statements based on failed reproductions in psychology or sociology.

And this is part of why all the drug development work ends up happening in private industry.

You're joking, right?

Pharmaceutical Companies Spent 19 Times More On Self-Promotion Than Basic Research: Report

Has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.

Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all that money?

Also has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.

Why Pharma Needs the NIH: Basic Biology Drives the Industry, Says Genentech VP

This is about basic research, not development. As I said in my post, "That said, when it comes to the basic research side of things pharma companies do tend to let the academics do the work for them."

I love research about research

Also has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.

My point was that most drug DEVELOPMENT costs are incurred by private industry, because it isn't a low-risk publication environment.

I wasn't saying that the drug industry didn't have problems.

And this is part of why all the drug development work ends up happening in private industry.

You're joking, right?

Pharmaceutical Companies Spent 19 Times More On Self-Promotion Than Basic Research: Report

Pharmaceutical research and development: what do we get for all that money?

Why Pharma Needs the NIH: Basic Biology Drives the Industry, Says Genentech VP

I love research about research

New Orleans is squarely in Democrat hands, the Republicans haven't had anything to do with it. The fact that you don't know that just goes to show how good the media is at covering for them.

Oh yeah. The FEMA had nothing to do with Katrina aftermath. Wait. You're right! FEMA had nothing to with the aftermath! (And that was the problem.) Heckuva job Brownie.

As far as Scientific Funding.... Who was the first US President to dedicate Federal funds to embryonic stem cell research?

The same one that simultaneously forbid additional stem cells lines, thus leaving only lines of dubious value.

Nowhere near enough wind energy to power the world. It's a nice idea though. Have a look at this biofuel lecture to have the technical details clearly explained.

Nuclear might be better than fossile fuels from a greenhouse gas perspective, but we'd have to build a new nuclear plant every two days to supply the world this way. And we would still have the issues of nuclear waste to deal with on an even larger scale than the one we can't seem to solve today. Nuclear energy from the sun provides us with over 10,000 times the energy that humans use every day! Harvesting a small amount of this energy using photosynthesis is probably the most sustainable long term solution for the world's energy problems. To hear these issues explained very clearly and logically watch the argument for biofuels . This is a lecture by Dr. Chris Somerville for the American Society of Cell Biology. Dr. Somerville is the head of the new $500 million biofuels institute at UC Berkeley and is a true visionary in the field.

American Society for MicroBiology
The ASM believes that labeling on the basis of process is not scientifically warranted. Genetic modification has long been used to enhance the production of plants and animals for food. Indeed it is doubtful that there exists any agriculturally important product that can be labeled as not genetically modified by traditional breeding procedures or otherwise. Biotechnology as practiced in agriculture today is part of a continuum of ever more refined attempts to breed better plants and animals for food or show.

American Society for Cell Biology
Many individuals and groups have raised concerns about the safety of transgenic BT crops despite the fact that the bacteria that naturally produce BT have been applied directly to crops as a form of organic pest control for over 40 years. Transgenic BT crops have passed rigorous testing in the US, Canada, and Japan, and they have been found to pose no threat to other insects, animals, or humans. The primary alternative to BT is large-scale spraying of pesticides which kills both beneficial and harmful insects and has other negative environmental consequences.

National Academy of Sciences
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309069300/html/

Since the National Academy of Sciences is the nations premier scientific organization, they best represent the current scientific consensus in the field, so I will quote from their report, first stated in a 1987 white paper and reitterated April 2000:

• There is no evidence that unique hazards exist either in the use of rDNA techniques or in the movement of genes between unrelated organisms.
• The risks associated with the introduction of rDNA-engineered organisms are the same in kind as those associated with the introduction of unmodified organisms and organisms modified by other methods.
• Assesment of the risks of introducing rDNA-engineered organisms into the environment should be based on the nature of the organism and the environment into which it is introduced, not on the method by which it was produced.