"Ignore them all."

[MBombardier]

I found this article to be very interesting, and to reinforce my desire to do what I find to help me personally, whether my doctor agrees with it or whether it falls into current medical establishment thinking.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/pri ... ience/8269

[Gloria]

Very enlightening article, Marliss. Thank you for posting it.

Gloria

[tex]

Marliss,

I've been a fan of Dr. Ioannidis's work for several years, and I believe I posted a link to one of his 2005 articles, (about the probability of research being incorrect), several years ago. This foolishness was axacerbated decades ago, by the "publish or perish" policy promoted by most universities, as a prerequisite for tenure. It resulted in so much worthless research, (simply for the sake of publishing research papers), that even way back then, we quickly realized that not only did it not matter whether the topic was totally worthless, but it didn't really matter whether the results were entirely valid, so long as we could make a sound case, and we were able to defend our conclusions against peer scrutiny. After all, when an "expert" writes a paper, only an equally-qualified "expert" is in a position to dispute the findings, and those "experts" are usually loathe to do that, because they don't want to be raked over the coals when they publish their own "worthless" research findings. I suspect that this attitude simply spilled over into medical research, resulting in the "mess" that we have now, where virtually anything can be proven, and yet almost nothing is actually correct.

I was a PhD candidate when all this foolishness was just beginning to really blossom. I had completed all my course work, I had passed the qualifying exams, and passed the foreign language exams, and all I had left to do, was to finish my research, and write a dissertation. PhD candidates are required to provide peer reviews for research topics presented in seminars. After sitting through dozens and dozens of them, I become so disillusioned and disgusted over the whole situation, that I decided to chuck it all, and I went back to the farm. 99.9% of the seminars that I attended were nothing but snowjobs about irrelevant topics. IOW, they amounted to nothing more than time and money wasted, proving nothing. I just couldn't stand to be a part of that pathetic game, and I suppose that's why I tend to view sloppy research so harshly.

The saddest part is, those doing that research don't see anything wrong with what they are doing. Can you imagine that? It's true. I can tell you from experience, that they justify their behavior, by rationalizing that they've earned the right to do so, by earning a doctorate degree. Far too many of them feel that the degree entitles them to do whatever they please, and everyone else can kiss their butts, if they don't like it. No joke. And that, in a nutshell, is why I don't have a PhD. Strangely, I don't even view my opting out as a loss - I view it as a close call.

Tex

[Rosie]

Tex, you may be painting with too broad a brush. I have had the good fortune to encounter some "true" scientists, so even though I recognize the mediocrity and venality of some, I'm not quite as cynical as you. I certainly have noticed a decline in standards over the years related to the way scientists are funded these days. The lure of big money through associations with drug companies certainly plays a big role, as do the difficulties of obtaining government funding through NIH and other agencies. Making cautious, but honest conclusions doesn't count as much as exaggeration to get the attention of granting agencies. Many of the scientists I know bemoan the games they have to play, the "grantsmanship" to get funded. But in the end, the truth does come out even though it might have come out sooner with more honest research.

When I was in graduate school, my major professor was brutally honest with high standards, and had no problem calling out sloppy research in public. Of course he was disliked by many, but I respected him a lot and got along well with him, even though I didn't always escape his critical tongue!

Rosie

[tex]

Rosie,

Definitely, there are are a lot of great scientists out there, but the system does it's best to corrupt them, and only the staunchest are able to withstand the pressure. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all researchers are corrupt, or mediocre, because that's obviously not true. Mediocrity seems to be the default selection, though, in far too many cases, especially when enough money is at stake.

Global warming research is a good example of this. Up until the government decided to change it's official position on global warming, there was little interest in it, (because there was little money in it), and most climatologists weren't afraid to state their honest opinions. After several years, during which virtually all of the grant money has been shifted to the "goal" of proving global warming, there are precious few climatologists remaining, who are still objective about the topic. Most have "changed their tune", in order to put bread on the table. If you want any research money, you have to go with the flow.

Tex

[MBombardier]

Sorry for repeating a news article. I looked back through April, because there was something published in the Huffington Post then, but that's as far back as I went.

What were you going to get your PhD in, Tex? I am of the opinion, though some would probably think it heretical, that not everyone needs to go to college. College degrees have become cheapened because so many people have one. I shop a lot at Costco, and several of the employees have master's degrees and even PhD's. Granted, Costco takes very good care of its employees, but... I have a BBA, and other than working while my husband got his master's, the most use it has been to me is to qualify me in the state's eyes to homeschool my children.

I thoroughly disappointed my parents by not going on with my schooling, but like you, I am glad I did not. My husband, after having two year's to write it, wrote his master's thesis over a couple of weeks of all-nighters, and the PhD's on the review board said it was the best one they had read in 10 years. As young and wet-behind-the-ears as I was then, I still thought that the reason they said that was because it was difficult to understand. If it is difficult for PhD's to understand, that means it has to be really, really good, right?

My son graduated this year with a bachelor's degree in engineering physics and will probably be sent to grad school by the military contractor he works for. I am all for that--he's married and expecting a child and further education will likely increase his ability to provide for his family.

Other than that, college has become a racket in many ways, not just "publish or perish." I was told when in college that college did not exist for the students but for the faculty and administration and all that nice government loan money. My son, who went to one of the top universities in the world for his major, graduated from college fiercely disillusioned with the whole academic experience. Sure, there were gifted and inspiring teachers, but they were few. The rest were more concerned with their research projects, among other things, and in effect shut the students out of some of the things that might have done them good and that they might have done good for.

So the upshot is that the two girls I still have at home may or may not go to college. My 15yo wants to be an astrophysicist, but she does not want to leave home. There are amazing online college courses (including from MIT, Yale, and UC-Berkeley) but either she's going to have to change her ambition or leave home at some point. My 12yo struggles with being easily distracted, and after me, would probably be the one who benefits most at this point from going gluten-free. She will be glad to graduate from high school. She is a talented artist and a creative writer, and doesn't need a degree for that. And that's fine with me.

[tex]

I was in mechanical engineering, with a lot of extra course work in mathematics and computer science, (at least that's what it was called back in those days, when it was still in it's infancy, and if you wanted to use a computer to solve a problem, you had to write the software first, because there were no commercial applications available.

I agree that college isn't for everyone. And, if you do go to college, you have to know when to stop. My supervising prof advised me to skip a Masters, and go straight for a PhD, so without even thinking, that's what I did. Unfortunately, what I originally wanted to do was to design farm equipment, and eventually it dawned on me that no one hires someone with a PhD to design conventional equipment. When you get to that stage, you're usually stuck with lab-based research, (at least you were back in those days), and that wasn't exactly my cup of tea, either - I'm a hand's-on type, who likes to design and build things.

The rest were more concerned with their research projects, among other things, and in effect shut the students out of some of the things that might have done them good and that they might have done good for.

Exactly, I don't know what their priorities are these days, but previously, they didn't care whether you were worth a hoot at teaching or not, (speaking from experience - I taught for a couple of years), so long as you went through the motions, and published articles regularly. Research was rewarded, teaching was not - that always seemed bass-ackwards to me.

Tex

[hoosier1]

Ahhh. The subject of PhD's. I gotta dip my toes into the water on this subject.

I work with, and come across, many PhD's in my field. So called, court qualified, "experts." "Experts" that have wrongfully (and without remorse) been responsible for the conviction and sentencing of innocent people (some have been put to death). And unfortunately, I can count only on one hand, those PhD's whom I hold in high regard for their knowledge, ability to teach others, the application of their education in a practical sense, their common sense (which isn't very common) and their ethics. I also see such a wide variety of standards across all of our universities in the objective requirements needed to earn that moniker. For example, I know BSEE's from top 5 engineering programs that are simply more gifted in the application of their knowledge than PhD's from schools with lesser reputations. So, IMHO, it is not the sheepskin that defines necessarily your ability to perform, but your inborn ability to solve problems using the education you have acquired.

I say inborn because I have hired and managed many well educated people over my career, and I have developed some very simple questions during the interview process that tell me how candidates think, regardless of their "credentials". The most gifted engineer I have ever worked with has no formal education. He was a military guy who had some level of training from the Army, but never developed a theses, per se. He would run circles around the so-called scientists at my company. So....

The courts seem to be impressed by the sheepskins presented by experts (the more, the better), but I have to agree with Tex with respect to the "hands on" application of their education. Getting to "root cause" is the crux of my career, and i have found that simply having a PhD doesn't necessarily prepare one any better to achieve this result. In fact, I find that the higher education levels tend to put blinders on many. They can't think beyond or outside of their field of study and typically lack necessary practical and hands on skills. And even more dangerous, is that an ego develops and an air of infallibility. I love to come up against people like that. They tend to fall very quickly, as do their "theories", under cross-examination.

Rich

[tex]

Rich,



Unfortunately, the old adage is true - for many people, a little education is a bad thing. The basic problem is that in reality, a PhD only proves that you are capable of researching, and capable of learning. If someone isn't willing to view their degree that way, (as simply a stepping stone to allow them to learn how to solve real world problems), then it isn't doing them much good. Those who view their degree as the pinnacle of their achievements, (and who view themselves as "experts", simply because they've earned the title "Dr.", are the most likely to fail to live up to the standards to which any self-respecting PhD should aspire.

IMO, anyone can earn a PhD, if she or he is willing to jump through the hoops. It's not rocket science. The rocket science should come after the degree. The old saying about computer data applies - "garbage in, garbage out". You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and as Marliss so accurately pointed out, "College degrees have become cheapened because so many people have one." At one time, only people who were truly dedicated to seeking the ultimate truth, earned a PhD. They literally "burned" with the desire to learn. Now, PhDs are a dime a dozen, and the majority of them are working in positions that shouldn't really require a PhD in the first place, and they're turning out mediocre work. The majority of them most definitely don't "burn to learn".

And Rich, you hit the nail on the head, dead-center, with your observation that so many of them don't have much common sense. I'm always amazed when I meet someone with a PhD, who actually shows good common sense, because it's such a rarity. I keep wondering if the others simply never had any common sense, or if they just lost it, in all the confusion. The sad truth is, though, common sense is not a prerequisite for official "expert" status.

That said, I personally know quite a few PhDs who definitely deserve the title, and who are exemplary researchers, and contributors to the knowledgebase. It just seems so ridiculous that there are so many others, who don't appear to be qualified. What was their doctoral committee thinking, when they pronounced them qualified?

Tex