And no, I’m not trying to make that case that academic labs should make drugs. If they want to try, then come on down. If they don’t, that’s fine, too – there’s a lot of important research to be done in the world that has no immediate practical application. But this sort of paper that I’ve written about today seems to miss both of these boats simultaneously: it isn’t likely to produce a drug, and it doesn’t seem to be addressing any other pressing needs that I can see, either
That’s from a blog post by Derek Lowe where he discusses a paper in J. Med. Chem.. His beef with the paper, which is scientifically sound, is that it doesn’t really do anything useful. One of the points made by others is that academic work doesn’t have to be industrially relevant, but does impart training to those doing it. The flip side to that is, does that need to be published?
An interesting question, one about which I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I believe that good science needs to be published, i.e. the PLoS One approach. On the other hand, even academic science needs to serve a purpose, although that purpose does not need to be applied. It could be understanding fundamental scientific processes and mechanisms (IMHO some of the most wonderful aspects of science). It could be about new methods and algorithms that help us understand the world around us, or test out hypotheses. The question that is difficult to answer is where that boundary between lies? I don’t like me too papers, i.e. a paper about doing something that doesn’t add anything to the field, essentially a paper that seems to exist for the sake of publishing, as opposed to improving the current science in that area, but that is a somewhat subjective criterion.
The purpose behind research
That’s from a blog post by Derek Lowe where he discusses a paper in J. Med. Chem.. His beef with the paper, which is scientifically sound, is that it doesn’t really do anything useful. One of the points made by others is that academic work doesn’t have to be industrially relevant, but does impart training to those doing it. The flip side to that is, does that need to be published?
An interesting question, one about which I have mixed feelings. On one hand, I believe that good science needs to be published, i.e. the PLoS One approach. On the other hand, even academic science needs to serve a purpose, although that purpose does not need to be applied. It could be understanding fundamental scientific processes and mechanisms (IMHO some of the most wonderful aspects of science). It could be about new methods and algorithms that help us understand the world around us, or test out hypotheses. The question that is difficult to answer is where that boundary between lies? I don’t like me too papers, i.e. a paper about doing something that doesn’t add anything to the field, essentially a paper that seems to exist for the sake of publishing, as opposed to improving the current science in that area, but that is a somewhat subjective criterion.
In other words … the debate continues
Related articles by Zemanta