Certainly much is asked of the graduates, often very specific experience is required. Even though such techniques and protocols are easily picked up by people with related experience. Such positions are called 'studentships' for a reason. But ok, if you have hundreds of applicants, you can and should choose the ones that match the best with the position. I suppose I would have done the same thing.
I do not doubt the skills of the researchers, I'm sure that excellent research is conducted in most cases. But I am convinced that a lot of projects miss the focus that make them truly useful.
What research do you think is useful?
It is a good question to ask, since it is your money that is being
spent. Most of the money for research comes from tax and from charity
funds. I think it is only fair that research projects should aim to
do something in return for the people. Most people agree medical
research is useful, especially research on common diseases like
cancer. Physics and mathematics pave the way for future technologies.
And many people are interested in answers to big questions like "what
is everything composed of?" and "how did the universe came
to be?". Of course, there are also practical technological
projects that result more directly in tangible technological
advancements. Of economic research I cannot say much, because I
haven't read much about it. Though I think the way economists
predicted and solved the economic crisis speaks for itself. On the
other hand, it might be that the field of economics is on the verge
of changing from divination to science. The field of history is
useful I think, in general. Historical research does not lead to new
technologies, but we certainly can learn from the past. Wise men
learn from other people's mistakes. The only field of 'research' that
I consider utterly useless is the field of theology. Theology is just
plain hogwash and poppycock. To name it a science is an insult.
Religion has nothing to do with science. Religion is antiscience.
Theology is not the subject of this
rant. While every cent spent on it is utterly wasted, it is not the
big sink of most funding money. Much more money is wasted in the
field of medicine. I will explain this using two examples of research
projects. The first is a project that touches both the fields of
history and medicine (1).
It is about the role of family in survival since 1812. The aim of the
project is to find both genetic and socio-economic factors that play
a role in early child deaths, and exceptional longevity. Maybe you
will think that this is valuable. That this might help reduce child
deaths, and extend our lives. But then you would be quite naive.
Firstly, we cannot be sure of all
factors that influence longevity, because only a small fraction of it
is documented. We know where people lived and when they died. We
might find out what jobs they had, and for isolated cases what
diseases they suffered from. But we do not know the exact diet of all
the studied individuals. We do not know about accidents, infections,
poisoning. Because we do not know the details we cannot distinguish
between effects of the environment and of the genes, both are
expected to be similar for individuals of the same family.
Conversely, family members are not clones, and only some members
might suffer from rare diseases when two defective recessive alleles
of the same locus happen to converge. New mutations can also occur
and can also die out quickly if they are detrimental enough.
Correlations that are made will not be very valuable, because of so
many unknown factors. Because these factors are not accounted for,
randomness increases, plausibly removing the possibility of making
correlations at all. Secondly, we know what kills people. I think you
agree that if correlations arise between short lifespan and a
polluting factory, or the presence of some infection, it will be
hardly surprising. Perhaps you are not so sure about ageing, but I can
tell you that it is not some vague, unknown process. A magical drain
of energy that culminates in the appearance of the grim reaper
happens only in fairy stories. In real life, our bodies get damaged
in multiple ways, which appears as well known diseases:
atherosclerosis, alzheimers, cancer, various heart diseases,
susceptibility to infections, etc. When the body sustains too much
damage it dies. There are two positions on this project for a period
of four years, so probably about 400.000 euros are transmutated into vague correlations that at most tell us what we already know. Nowadays ageing is popular, which is definitely a good thing, but the projects that aim to investigate
it are poorly designed.
The second example is a project aimed
at understanding the development of a certain disease that has its
origin in defective mitochondria (which are the power plants of the cell)
(2).
It is an example of many current research projects, where the
development rather than the source of the pathology is the subject of
the research. In this particular case, the mitochondrial genes ought
to be the subject of the research. The mitochondria are like small
cells within the cell (they were once bacteria), and possess their
own DNA. The main DNA of the cell is located in a protective shelter
called the nucleus, protected from damaging molecules. The
mitochondrial DNA is at the worst place that DNA could be, at the
position where damaging molecules are produced. Therefore it tends to
accumulate mutations much more quickly than the DNA in the nucleus.
If we could transfer this DNA to the nucleus, it will both solve
problems caused by current mutations, and prevent accumulation of new
mutations. There is some work to be done in recoding the genes so
that they function from out of the nucleus, but that's where such
research projects are for. The transfer of the recoded mitochondrial
genes to the nucleus will be both a cure for people that suffer from
mitochondrial diseases, and a preventive measure to counter future
mitochondrial problems. If you want to read more about this, you should visit this website (3).
We shouldn't want to find out every
detail of every disease, but rather focus on curing those diseases. If a computer's RAM gets damaged, we should not investigate how exactly the operating system (OS) gets corrupted when you continue to use the computer. How exactly one error will lead to another, what all the possible routes towards a complete defective OS are. We simply replace the damaged RAM module. And if it is necessary replace damaged parts of the OS, or reinstall the OS altogether. All this research into the exact
development of the diseases will not help cure the diseases, but will
actually help the diseases survive. Such distracting research
'steals' funding away from really important research that is
neccessary for curing important diseases.
If we want to remove important
age-related diseases like cancer and alzheimers, we truly need to
focus on curing diseases rather than simply discovering things.
Currently, that focus is lacking in many labs.
References:
1: https://www.academictransfer.com/employer/RUN/vacancy/22055/lang/nl/
2: https://www.academictransfer.com/employer/UMCR/vacancy/17698/lang/en/
3: http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research/mitochondrial-mutations
No comments:
Post a Comment