Comments on: Communicating research: a case from vector molecular biology http://topnaman.com/communication/molecular-biology-of-vector-control/ malaria news and discussion Sat, 13 Feb 2010 18:07:34 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: naman http://topnaman.com/communication/molecular-biology-of-vector-control/comment-page-1/#comment-5692 naman Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:25:54 +0000 http://topnaman.com/?p=516#comment-5692 Jessica, I couldn't have said it better! Just trying to give the benefit of the doubt... Jessica, I couldn’t have said it better! Just trying to give the benefit of the doubt…

]]> By: Jessica Lin http://topnaman.com/communication/molecular-biology-of-vector-control/comment-page-1/#comment-5691 Jessica Lin Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:45:00 +0000 http://topnaman.com/?p=516#comment-5691 Or, as someone put it to me once, it's the "So What?" question. I agree it has to be presented in a way that is comprehensible to those outside that specific area of research. The cynic in me says people do certain lines of research because they can, and they make up the so-what part later, so it's an afterthought and that's reflected in the write-up. But we should also remember that not everything is "public health research". Or, as someone put it to me once, it’s the “So What?” question. I agree it has to be presented in a way that is comprehensible to those outside that specific area of research. The cynic in me says people do certain lines of research because they can, and they make up the so-what part later, so it’s an afterthought and that’s reflected in the write-up. But we should also remember that not everything is “public health research”.

]]> By: barmak http://topnaman.com/communication/molecular-biology-of-vector-control/comment-page-1/#comment-5687 barmak Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:34:02 +0000 http://topnaman.com/?p=516#comment-5687 Very good points. Thanks. Very good points. Thanks.

]]> By: naman http://topnaman.com/communication/molecular-biology-of-vector-control/comment-page-1/#comment-5686 naman Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:01:00 +0000 http://topnaman.com/?p=516#comment-5686 It's funny because its true. What I can't understand is why the reviewers do not force the authors to elucidate their rationale. The discussion and introduction really do provide ample area to do so but maybe a distinct "Why we care" section will help us change! It’s funny because its true. What I can’t understand is why the reviewers do not force the authors to elucidate their rationale. The discussion and introduction really do provide ample area to do so but maybe a distinct “Why we care” section will help us change!

]]> By: Will http://topnaman.com/communication/molecular-biology-of-vector-control/comment-page-1/#comment-5685 Will Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:50:39 +0000 http://topnaman.com/?p=516#comment-5685 It almost justifies a special "why we care" section of all papers. Currently it's usually tied into the introduction with a sentence or two saying "Disease X is a terrible disease affecting 10,000,000 people each year. Understanding inversions is ESSENTIAL to our ability to treat X." In place of ESSENTIAL insert NECESSARY, CRITICAL, IMPERATIVE or some other big word that's a synonym for 'very important'. It's funny because if you're familiar with the area of research you actually skip over that silly paragraph because its so vapid. If you don't know anything about the field then you just assume that the author knows what he's talking about. It almost justifies a special “why we care” section of all papers. Currently it’s usually tied into the introduction with a sentence or two saying “Disease X is a terrible disease affecting 10,000,000 people each year. Understanding inversions is ESSENTIAL to our ability to treat X.” In place of ESSENTIAL insert NECESSARY, CRITICAL, IMPERATIVE or some other big word that’s a synonym for ‘very important’. It’s funny because if you’re familiar with the area of research you actually skip over that silly paragraph because its so vapid. If you don’t know anything about the field then you just assume that the author knows what he’s talking about.

]]> By: naman http://topnaman.com/communication/molecular-biology-of-vector-control/comment-page-1/#comment-5684 naman Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:39:32 +0000 http://topnaman.com/?p=516#comment-5684 thanks Will - I don't know much about the fitness effects of inversions but I think your questions as to what exactly are they calling attention to underline the need to clearly communicate the research thanks Will – I don’t know much about the fitness effects of inversions but I think your questions as to what exactly are they calling attention to underline the need to clearly communicate the research

]]> By: Will http://topnaman.com/communication/molecular-biology-of-vector-control/comment-page-1/#comment-5683 Will Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:49:14 +0000 http://topnaman.com/?p=516#comment-5683 I wonder if this study is interesting not because of the particular phenotype they studied, but because of the type of genomic polymorphism they looked at. Inversions are unusual changes that I imagine don't often have fitness effects. Perhaps they're calling attention to their possible relevance to other phenotypes that they weren't able to look at as easily? Maybe they're calling attention to inversion polymorphisms in general? I know that everyone seems to be obsessed with SNPs right now, mostly because they're quick and easy. You do have to wonder sometimes why people study the things that they do. I wonder if this study is interesting not because of the particular phenotype they studied, but because of the type of genomic polymorphism they looked at. Inversions are unusual changes that I imagine don’t often have fitness effects. Perhaps they’re calling attention to their possible relevance to other phenotypes that they weren’t able to look at as easily? Maybe they’re calling attention to inversion polymorphisms in general? I know that everyone seems to be obsessed with SNPs right now, mostly because they’re quick and easy.

You do have to wonder sometimes why people study the things that they do.

]]>