Discussion about this post

User's avatar
JPodmore's avatar

I feel like the Discovery trial is wildly underrated. The RNA vaccines got the Breakthrough prize (very deservedly), and yet although the Discovery trial saved maybe upwards of a million people, they don't seem to have won anything. Given the problems with basic science generally - e.g. everything you discuss in the peer review section, the amyloid Alzheimer's probable-fraud - maybe it's a bad idea for the scientific world to just ignore this extremely well-run RCT in favour of the fancy new thing*. Why isn't everyone screaming about how basic research - performed very well - can have almost as big an impact?

*the fancy new thing is excellent and probably deserves the Nobel too.

Expand full comment
D'Nivra's avatar

Great piece. The peer review inefficiencies hit close to home. The best approach I have seen so far has been with https://openreview.net/. I had a nice experience with it, but was a bit unnerving at first (this was in machine learning, where the community has more open to disrupting established models) Long term, I think this system is far more trustworthy if we combine it with Arxiv, instead of the paywall leeches that have a suck the life out of academia today. Anytime I think about peer review, I feel it can't be fixed unless we address the issue of publicly funded research benefiting private gatekeepers.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts