[The Scientist Community]
  [Search] Search   [Recent Topics] Recent Topics   [Hottest Topics] Hottest Topics   [Groups] Back to Forum home 
Messages posted by: BeverlyICN000311974
Forum Index » Profile for BeverlyICN000311974 » Messages posted by BeverlyICN000311974
Author Message
Robert, I totally agree, as one who's worked in both milieux.
Also in pharma (can't speak for biotech) one is part of a team (biologist, chemist, toxicologist, etc) and one presents data at staff meetings, often weekly. Helps to keep folks on the straight and narrow, knowing there's quite a bit of oversight.
Now how do you propose to put in your own money?
My university wouldn't allow that. Nor would the VA.

Have you served yet on a study section?
Eve, I purposely left out some details, which are salient.
I don't wish to disclose them in these fora.
Eve, there is "cronyism" in the NIH system, and it is not just limited to study section members. For example, I know folk who seek out program officials at meetings, in order to wine 'em and dine 'em.
In fact, at a grant writing course I attened years ago, this was encouraged. I won't disclose more details so as to retain anonymity.
NSF may be different, I wouldn't know (my research is not eligible for NSF consideration). DoD and VA certainly are different (cronyism won't help because the systems fund very differently from NIH).
Helping new investigators is good; that's why there should be some funds set aside for them.

Cronyism is bad, and to the extent that some new investigators benefit from cronyism (they come from the "blessed" labs), it's bad.

Of course, if paylines were realistic, as they are in many European countries (I review grants for a few EU countries, where paylines are 50 to 75th percentiles), who would care? Here in the US, the scientific differences among grants scored 5th %ile and 12 %ile are probably nil, but the second grant still won't be funded in these fiscal times.
That's old news.
For the record, I'm auburn-haired and have very high pain tolerance; that has been noted by dentists, the orthopedist who fixed my bimalleolar fracture this winter, my physical therapist, and the OB who delivered my child by natural childbirth. My father has high pain tolerance (not a redhead though the red hair comes from his family), so maybe pain tolerance has other genetic components.
Yes, especially considering that Gallo was not honored and now will never be.
to the previous poster:
you are delusional.

Google Donald Henderson
EllenTS1006644 wrote:It takes 5-7 days for immune response to show its effects.

Also - polio has not been eradicated. Only one disease has been eradicated and that is smallpox.


True. It is a goal to eradicate polio through vaccination that has yet to be achieved.
ElwalTS1040613 wrote:Can a vaccine cure already infected/suffering patients or just prevent healthy people from getting the disease, or both?



that would depend on how chronic the disease is and what the natural history 9time course) of it is. Takes time to launch an effective immune response.
ElwalTS1040613 wrote:Smallpox, and Polio have been eradicated by vaccination but they were never actually cured in any of the people who already had the disease.

It's been 27 years since the HIV pandemic began and we still don't have a cure, paraplegics still can't walk, Alzhiemer's and Parkinson's patients still have no cure. Muscular Dystrphy, hell even the common cold doesn't have a cure. I can't even think of one disease or condition that has actually been cured in the patients suffering from them.

Help me out here, can y'all name a few? I'm sure there are probably some examples of life threatening illnesses or debilitating conditions that have been cured but I'm just drawing a blank right now.


Vaccines are designed to provide a boost to immunity and not a cure for a disease.
 
Forum Index » Profile for BeverlyICN000311974 » Messages posted by BeverlyICN000311974
Go to: