Saturday, 20 April 2013

Should we bother with EAE papers?

The blog is about interpreting the good, bad and other research news, unfortunately if the relevance to MS is found wanting or there a methodological queries, and this is said, then the authors of the papers get upset. 

We tend to cover only the stories, in EAE, that are in the top science rags as they tend to hit the media.

Should we schtop?

7 comments:

  1. Well I do find it good to have expert opinion to hand to put mainstream media reports into perspective. So I do find your posts useful. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's definitely useful to have someone who can interpret the data and give an opinion and give an idea of their potential generalisability to humans. If people are't comfortable with taking criticisms of their work they maybe shouldn't bother publishing it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your approach is just fine. I'm grateful for all you do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, agree with above. I find the reports of what doesn't work useful, along with the dubious results from animal models that are far removed from our actual disease.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think the EAE papers are usually relevant to current MSers, even if the methodology etc are fine.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with all of the above and personally don't care if some authors get upset that any flaws in their work are commented on (and agitate to get such comments removed). If the papers were properly refereed in the first place in many cases, this would not be necessary.

    ReplyDelete

Please note that all comments are moderated and any personal or marketing-related submissions will not be shown.