Peer Review, Cancer, Editor discussed on The Portal
The beginning? Meaning of podcast. You Moron no offense. You were in line for a Nobel Prize. You didn't. I mean I'm sorry there isn't aspect of this of giving away your power even though you've even accused just you don't even have a PhD. I'm just saying at the time. If you mentioned her name would say I her Nobel prizes one of these years right so my point was I was in the awkward position. I didn't understand what I was supposed to do. I didn't WanNa send back a review that said I don't know who the person is reviewed this but they don't understand the material Tiriac and all of their critiques suck. Because I didn't want to accuse somebody who was that powerful of not getting. What do you do? You don't actually have evidence Indi- in the hard right arm where like you have got videotape. But on the other hand these are small worlds. All of this is preposterous right. So I sit on the review for too long not knowing what we don't know how to I don't know how to handle it. I'm sorry but I have no adviser. Your adviser was not equipped for the modern era. He wasn't equipped for the monetary wasn't equipped for molecular biology. That's I finally settled on a strategy that I can and live with and I send back a note I send back the review and my note says I don't know why but this entire list of critiques is not high quality if you would like to point me. Any of the critiques. In this list that you would like me to address. I am more than happy happy to do it but I don't think it makes sense to address the entire list and as I recall it I hit send on the email and within in minutes maybe it was an hour. I got back a response. Your paper has been accepted for publication which which blew me away because no sense according to regular protocol right. It makes no sense because clearly they're supposed to send it out for review the reviewer supposed to say whether we're supposed to get publicity if you were said it shouldn't be published I said I refuse to address these critiques. Unless you asked me to the editors have overridden the reviewers they understood. The reviews were cruddy. They needed me to say that in order to justify the move that they wanted to make they knew the paper was good and the review was crap so they effectively effectively overrode normal. Peer Review was my paper peer reviewed while it was by the editors who were experts while Bet Le Let me jump in. Peer Review is a cancer from outer space. It came from the biomedical community. It invaded science The old system because I have to say this because many people who are are now professional scientists have an idea that peer review has always been in our literature and absolutely motherfucking has not right. Okay used to be eh that the editor of a journal took responsibility for the quality of the Journal. Which is why we had things like nature crop up in the first place? Because they had courageous -rageous knowledgeable forward thinking editors and so I just want to be very clear because there is a mind virus out there that says peer review is the CINNA McLennan of scientific excellence. Yada Yada Yada Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit. And if you don't believe me go back and learn that this is a recent invasive problem in the sciences recent vase of problem that has no justification for existing in light of the finale have no justification for existing when Watson Crick did the Double Helix and this is the cleanest example we have. The paper was agreed. Should not be sent out for review because anyone one who is competent would understand immediately what its implications were. There are reasons that great work cannot be peer reviewed. Furthermore your given tire fields that are existing now with electronic archives that are not peer reviewed. Peer Review is not peer review. It sounds like Peer Review It is pier injunction. It is the ability for your peers to keep the world from learning about your work. Keep the world from learning about your work because peer review is what happens real. Peer Review Is. What happens after you've passed the bullshit thing called Peer Review? Yes okay so the paper APOR was accepted by experimental Gerontology. They went on to publish it. This is called life. Slow fuse no life slow. Fuse was the title assent to nature and I changed the title because I did not want a compromise. The store I didn't want to confuse the original submission was called life. Slow fuse WHO's right. We probably have a copy of that are sorry then the Jaren experimental gerontology paper. What is it called the Reserve Capacity Hypothesis K.? Because this is a much less catchy title but nonetheless the paper I'm very proud of house. Written people read who were not expert could understand the abstract abstract is extremely clear and it ends with the clear point that because we have unearthed we have predicted. It did and Carol Greider has shown that wild mice delamere's are short and that telomeres have been elongated by captivity. That there is a clear leered. Danger that the mice we're using for drugs. Safety testing are biased in an egregious way and the bias would look look like this a mouse. That has very long. Delamere's has an indefinitely large capacity to replace damaged tissue and it has a vulnerability To cancer that is Predator naturally high. So we may be overrating for us. These mice may be overrating the danger sure of causing cancer and vastly underrating the danger talk of toxicity and in fact one of the things so the point was was you give a mouse who's got effectively infinite capacity to replace its tissues a toxin and either the toxin is so deadly that it dies right away but if it doesn't die right away it just eats up the insult So those animals would lead us to release drug insult. You mean is cellular necrosis damage the what this would cause us to do is release drugs onto the market for human use that are highly toxic across the body and it again if if the mice if the mouse standard was the last standard. Well no even. If it's not the last standardly Costa say this. The problem is I mean you you can imagine how hard it is to test on. Large slowly reproducing animals so ethics of testing on humans is very absolutely restricted. Mandal is the less cheap place. It's the last key race large end data not only large N. But it's the one place that you can make the following of you can imagine that. In many circumstances the accelerated life if span the accelerated life cycle of mice allows you to see long term damage as it would accrue in humans on a very short timescale. That doesn't work with monkeys. It doesn't work with human patients. It works with mice. Maybe but in the case of mice with ultra-long telomeres those insults will be invisible. Look let's just I want to back up because I think is really important part of the story which you're saying is if you take an organism that has an expected. Let's say forty year lifetime it's very expensive timewise to say we ran this experiment and found and that There was no immediate damage that was visible but towards the very end of their lives we saw mark increase in morbidity or yeah I mean if you took could drug and it knocked fifteen years off your life on average that might not show up in any notable way in short term studies pressure to and nobody is GonNa WanNa let drugs. You know. You don't want to wait forty fifty years to find out what happened to these patients so what we do is we make the assumption that if we give large amounts of a drug to an animal that lives a very short life we will see those effects early. And if the animal happens to have ultra-long tears you won't see less effects early so it's a perfect storm for causing us to release drugs. That should never have been released into public. And you think oh I sure can viaducts for example so viaducts was discovered to do heart damage right heart damage. How do you why do we know that it's heart damage? Well the thing about hearts A Heart's for reasons we can get into. Maybe another time. Hearts have a very low capacity for self repair right. That's why they're vulnerable to our turnover. Uh Not much capacity for pair not much turnover now there. There's an adaptive reason for that but but hearts don't repair themselves was very well in a healthy person and when they fail. It's hard to ignore right if somebody WHO's thirty has heart fail. There's questions asked right so anyway. Vox was released into the public having passed drug safety. This isn't the only system that doesn't have a lot of my toasts like for example neurons ons neurons don't have a lot Cartilage doesn't have a lot of Your eyes cells. Don't note all of the tissues. I've just mentioned last time. You heard about anybody. Having you know cancer of the cartilage of their knee cancer of the heart no rain. Cancer tends to be gleaned glioma cells exactly so the tissues that have very low capacity for self repair right do tend to wear out and they don't get cancer which is exactly one of the sections of my paper right okay so Viaducts is known to do damage that created a big scandal. Because how the hell did it get drug safety. Testing turns out a lot of drugs. Have done in this. We've seen it in GLIVEC. Fen Phen Rhythm mice in your doctor probably still doesn't know their retirement as heart damage right. There's all of these cases aces of drugs that were released and then later understood to do heart damage now. My claim they don't actually do heart damage. They cellular damage and only saying yeah. Yeah Yeah Yeah. Yeah this is the Jesus is like another layer of this thing. It's like a huge fucking nightmare. Right because this thing about like perseverance disagree degree ability. You've got all sorts of things that sound like something that invalidates the theory. And then it's sort of theories upon theories the Lao you to see the original simplicity of the I see the original ideas very simple yet but if you know a lot of like weird facts about what you think are just mice this or something about hearts. You can't put together. What is going on the idea that the Ambien damages only manifest in the heart? Because that's the one one system or the neuro system. That like really doesn't have a lot of my toasts. So well piece of advice to anybody who finds themself in remotely only similar waters. The signal that you are on the right track is that stuff starts canceling complexity in the story which has accumulated accumulated because something was missing slur disappearing and you begin to take on a model anyway. So yes. We've got a situation where we've got a bunch of drugs mysteriously producing using damage. They've got a paper that's out real world application. You've got an a theory coming out of evolutionary theory. It's making a molecular prediction. Yup successfully predicts mouse telomeres. One of the world's leading labs as confirmed the prediction. Yup where are we. Now what would you. What a year? Well let's see. The paper came out in my recollection to be horrible about this. Is that your fucking department at the University of Michigan which has has some great people is also holding you back and enervating you year after year by not allowing because this is this is groundbreaking owned breaking stuff. This is Nobel quality work at least one or two times over. In my opinion I could be wrong. I'm biased because of your brother. I'm your brother but what concerns me here is that you are not comfortable with what this story really might be. No I look. It's not my taught minded judge. I'm very proud of this work and get work but the problem bread is Jerry. Coyne and Richard Dawkins.