Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

I will never ever again..


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Trof

Trof

    Brain on a stick

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,201 posts
110
Excellent

Posted 19 August 2013 - 08:13 AM

..participate on a paper I didn't wanted to exist in the first place, that has no point other than "well that results are pretty useless, don't do it" trying to look more like a "better do this instead to have a cool valid data" because someone thought it will be usefull for stupid people, in a topic I don't understand at all, and I overally hate every time I need to edit it..

..BUT which had to be accepted somewhere as an only result of grant funding, cause the original aim just got blown up, because of inability of bunch of stupid people to aquire enough samples for any sensible output

.. AND on which I still need to participate further, doing more useless stuff for reporting doing at least something.

Hate this.

 

(not that I'm looking for a solution here, I just wanted to rant..)


Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.

I never trust anything that can't be doubted.

'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon


#2 vetticus3

vetticus3

    Princess

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 144 posts
9
Neutral

Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:03 AM

Negative data?  There is nothing wrong with neg data.  Or is your issue with the problem of getting statistically significant data?  I has confusion. 

 

IMO, there should be more negative data papers. 

If there had been a paper which said "don't bother staining xxx, it doesn't work", I could have saved about 6 months of work and not looked like an imbecile during lab meetings.  Talking with other people in my field - they knew that the staining didn't work and did nothing to let the rest of the world know.  It was an open secret.  So now my paper has a lovely little note in the discussion - "staining xxx doesn't work".  World, you are welcome.  cool.png

 

I worked with a guy doing his PhD based on a publication from another lab.  Two years of negative data, it turns out that everyone trying to work on that subject had negative data - the original paper where the idea came from was flawed.  Now, if that neg data had been published it would have saved multiple labs a whole lot of time and money.

 

Just because you don't like the topic doesn't mean that the rest of the world shouldn't know of the problems associated with it.  Surprisingly, there are people that have different opinions than those which you have.  Be gracious - a publication is a publication. 



#3 Tabaluga

Tabaluga

    Making glass out of shards

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
49
Excellent

Posted 20 August 2013 - 01:40 AM

If there had been a paper which said "don't bother staining xxx, it doesn't work", I could have saved about 6 months of work and not looked like an imbecile during lab meetings.

 

So true.

 

 

(On the other hand I can understand the general frustration though...who wouldn't rather spend time on a paper of his own subject and with positve results.)


Edited by Tabaluga, 20 August 2013 - 01:45 AM.

Il dort. Quoique le sort fût pour lui bien étrange,
Il vivait. Il mourut quand il n'eut plus son ange;
La chose simplement d'elle-même arriva,
Comme la nuit se fait lorsque le jour s'en va.

 


#4 Trof

Trof

    Brain on a stick

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,201 posts
110
Excellent

Posted 20 August 2013 - 05:47 AM

It's not just negative data.

 

I think it would be pretty OK to have a thorough and systematic study of a different methodics, preferably finding the good one, but even writing that all we tried wasn't good enough would be perfectly fine. Just done well. Or something.

But this is not the case.

We should be testing transcriptional-based predictive score on snap-frozen samples RNA. They kind of find out, they are not able to secure any reasonable number of such samples for initial testing (like.. more than two, with the actual diagnosis) in due time. So, fallback was to try it on PPFE-isolated RNA. There was a paper where they did this, also, problem was high heterogenity, but when they run hundreds of them and made and split up by median, there still was visible predictive value.

I got 11 samples. Later it was found that two of those samples were from a single person and it was NOT even the specified diagnosis (= useless). And another one was so tiny there was not enough RNA, and next one got some RNA but unusable qPCR values. 

So I ended with seven samples I needed to make a median from...

And then.. I wanted to know whether this wacky number even correlate at least with survival or whatever.. well.. they weren't probably even treated with the specified regimen to be able to tell how they responded, in the first place, and patients seem to die randomly even compared with clinical prognosis (which isn't hard to get in sample size = 7).. so I got borderline bad data from unsufficient sample size correlated with nonexistent response.. I would just NOT make any paper from that.

But you can't end a grant with "oh, well, it didn't work and forget about it please.." so instead I'm trying to stitch up something about that you can isolate RNA from PPFE (gee.. you could read dozens of papers on that I suppose, but not one in "local" journal that everyone who can't speak english read or so) and you can even measure some Cts from it but it's not very nice so better not do it. Just from the absence of the "right" way to do it, which I cannot do.

I hate it. I hate it. I hate it.

 

Of course the original goal was to make this a new local diagnostic tool... well only thing I could write a paper about is how clearly this is impossible here, since all organization and co-operation sucks..  but that probably wouldn't fulfil the grant purpose, right..


Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.

I never trust anything that can't be doubted.

'Normal' is a dryer setting. - Elizabeth Moon


#5 vetticus3

vetticus3

    Princess

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 144 posts
9
Neutral

Posted 20 August 2013 - 11:25 AM

Oooh, logistical nightmares - yup that sucks.
You need a better pathology or surgical department.

Not sure if it helps but a lot of hospitals do have libraries of patient samples and I knew of a few pathology departments that were organising the samples from cancer patients as: at diagnosis, treatment, remission, 5+ years etc.

Depending on the disease, and the funding... Maybe a couple of phone calls might help. All you need is one good pathologist with a research department.




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.