Originally Posted by melysion
I have to say, Donaldjr1969, as someone who is a researcher I find your 'crackpot' comment a little insulting.
As I said before, I too would fall into the crackpot category, Allie. Therefore, I would have insulted myself...if I felt a word could insult me.
Now I was a bit curious to see if I may have posted anything to the effect that says "ALL researchers/scientists are crackpots." Upon re-reading my posts Allie, I saw nothing of the kind. So I have to say that I am a bit...befuddled...as to how you felt I was personally attacking you. If you feel I have it out for all researchers, well then to be nice my friend, that is a big load of bollocks!
The research I do is real research - and theres no 'fiddling' of figures. And I don't know anyone else that does so.
And that is something to be very proud of, Allie. I am glad you love your job and take pride in doing so. However, there are SOME scientists/researchers that do. And with all the controversies surrounding topis like artificial sweeteners and how what was once powdered death is now ok, I honestly have to wonder just how valid their data/conclusions are.
As for the 'hitting the press' comment
As Bethany says scientific work is peer reviewed and published in journals - its not like ringing up the local tabloid and selling your story you know ...
Oh I know the tabloids do not get it first. But peer-reviewed journals can be a double edged sword. If your results are definitely valid, yet so far against accepted science, what is the chance of that getting out? Imagine if there were peer-reviewed journals back in the time of Nicolaus Copernicus? When he stated and discovered that our solar system was heliocentric and not "terra-centric" as commonly accepted, he would have been laughed right out of the scientific community. If I remember, he was already. But guess what? He was right, the solar system, and the rest of the cosmos, DO NOT revolve around the earth.
But I am digressing here. I think, and this is totally opinion, that a lot of peer reviewed journals tend to be a little...oh how shall I say it...quick to react when it comes to biochemical research. After the fiasco with Thalidomide and Rachel Carson's well meaning, yet inaccurate, work with DDT, I think the scientific community may be a bit alarmist.
I see Bethany's point about if we waited to do more research, we would still be back in the ages of flint scrapers. But unless follow-up research would take years instead of weeks or even months, is it really that much to ask to just wait a bit longer and double check one's research before printing it? Knowing that the media can pore through a peer reviewed journal and take things out of context, I would guess that there is yet another motivation to have **** near indisputable facts and conclusions.