Wikipedia talk:Why MEDRS?/Archive 1

Archive 1

comments welcome

knock yourself out! Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving Why MEDRS?

Jytdog, I will start with just two general suggestions. Then I will make specific wording suggestions.

1) Instead of using bullets, I would use just paragraphs for the main parts and letters: (a), (b), (c) or numbers (1), (2), (3) for the sub-points. It will not only be easier for editors to discuss it with you, but I think bullets can be distracting for some readers.

2) Overall, I think you took too long to get to the part about biology. Once you started discussing the nature of biological research, it started to get interesting. I think the first part is necessary to give a little background, but I think as it is it's too long. Perhaps you could work on reducing it before I carefully review the first part. If you feel that it's all necessary, let me know and I will work on it. Right now, I will focus on the biology/research part and what follows it. CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's late and I'm getting tired. Will work on this more tomorrow. Now I'm not even sure what I meant by (2), above. I'll have to look at it again tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested links

Thanks for this, Jytdog – most insightful!

I made some minor tweaks myself that I assumed would be uncontroversial. I just wanted to suggest a couple of links:

• Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, by John P. A. Ioannidis.
• Much simpler and more visually striking, probably to complement the NYT-coffee discussion: Everything we eat both causes and prevents cancer

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks to both of you, Corrine and Adrian! I am grateful for your time and attention to this essay. Questions for you, if you like....

The Big Messages i want to communicate are:

a) MEDRS's emphasis on secondary sources is deeply aligned with the guts of WP (and we should use secondary sources all the time whenever we can)

b) the use of secondary sources in biology is especially important, due to the special challenges there. (there are many reasons for this)

b) the use of secondary sources for health content is really especially important, due to the yet more special challenges there. (there are yet other reasons for this)

• Do you think those are the right messages for a "Why MEDRS" essay?

• Does the essay communicate them?

• Whatever you think the messages should be, in my view this is impossibly long. What should get cut? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Note on commentary elsewhere, that i have yet to incorporate

see here Most of it was "too long" which is indeed clearly a problem. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh!

the move to mainspace was surprising. yikes! Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

comment about "biology is an observiational science" paragraph

(Jytdog I pretty much understand what you are saying but here is just something to think about: you started with "biology", then "human biology". Then "apply and evolve technology", then to "innovators in medicine", then ended here with "medicine". Do you think most readers will comprehend and follow this chain of terms? If so, then leave it as is. If not, then perhaps make the connection between "human biology", "apply and evolve technology", and "medicine" just a tiny bit more explicit. Since the sentence ends with "information technology", the use of the word "technology" ("apply and evolve technology") in the middle of the chain of terms might cause some confusion to some readers. I'm not saying to get rid of it. I'm just suggesting a slightly clearer connection between the phrases "human biology", "apply and evolve technology", and "medicine".) !!!!

The above text that was added in this dif, since this is now "live" i cut it out and pasted it here.. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

brownian motion image

about this image

Cells are messy, they are full of wet sloshy stuff and little lumps of machinery. This makes them behave randomly.

I understand the point, but I find this distracting (I generally don't like gifs in articles, especially ones you cannot make stop). Just my personal preference. If others really like this, please restore. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I like gifs, but I understand your point. Maybe a compromize is not to have it in the lede? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

that works for me. :) Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Audience?

@Jytdog: This is a great idea for an essay. Could you elaborate on whom you see as the intended audience? The lead addresses people new to health-related content on Wikipedia, but that could be doctors, experienced Wikipedians, undergraduate students, teachers, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm -- experienced Wiikipedians who are not familiar with biology and medicine, and inexperienced editors who are every day people (not scientists or doctors) who come to Wikipedia impassioned about some health thing. They were mostly who I had in mind when I wrote it (but to be frank I did not carefully consider the audience and I appreciate you asking this).

If your sense is that the essay is bent somehow and could be more broadly useful if the audience were more clearly considered and the essay more appropriately aimed, I am all ears. It is for sure too long now and better targeting could lead to more tightness, along with it being more useful.. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

An interesting essay that as you point out needs to be significantly condensed. One area that I think should be trimmed is the discussion about the difficulty of "understanding" biological systems. While it is nice to know why something works, it is far more important that we are certain that it does work. Points that I think should be emphasized are:

(1) Translation between in vitro and in vivo is imperfect.

(2) Because of between species differences in physiology, results in animals often do not translate into humans. Animals models are just that, imperfect models that often do not capture essential features of human diseases. (All models are wrong, some are useful).

(3) Much published preclinical research cannot be reproduced:

• Ioannidis JP (2005). "Why most published research findings are false". PLOS Med. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMC 1182327. PMID 16060722.
• Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011). "Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?". Nat Rev Drug Discov. 10 (9): 712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1. PMID 21892149.
• Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012). "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research". Nature. 483 (7391): 531–3. Bibcode:2012Natur.483..531B. doi:10.1038/483531a. PMID 22460880.

(4) The conclusions of clinical trials frequently contradict each other:

• Ioannidis JP (2005). "Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research". JAMA. 294 (2): 218–28. doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.218. PMID 16014596. S2CID 16749356. even the most highly cited randomized trials may be challenged and refuted over time, especially small ones

Boghog (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! One of these days I need to pass over this and finish it already. I will definitely incorporate that stuff. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Boghog I just incorporated this stuff. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)