I think this is a total hit piece.
"They’re preying on people who are desperate for a vaccine,"
As a contributor (and a scientist) - I don't feel like I've been preyed upon, at all.
Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
11–20 of 36 posts
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have enough data to have completed an INDA and are proceeding to phase I clinical trials. That's a much, much higher bar than an NIH grant. Paper publication is not necessarily a useful metric.
A number of NIH grants fund clinical trials. I direct you to the R34 mechanism, which is for Phase III trials as an example. And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality.
And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality.
This is incredibly short-sighted. Overvaluation of the literature is exactly why people pollute the literature with fraudulent results. It's why paper reviewing process and citations are polluted with political machinations. Ultimately, science is the entire corpus, from experimental design, through data collection, and presentation of work as papers. Reification of the publication process quietly enables researchers who keep everything up to publication a black box.
Moreover because some NIH grants fund clinical trials doesn't mean that all (or even the average) NIH grants have that level of scrutiny
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
A number of NIH grants fund clinical trials. I direct you to the R34 mechanism, which is for Phase III trials as an example. And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality.
And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality. This is incredibly short-sighted. Overvaluation of the literature is exactly why people pollute the literature with fraudulent results. It's why paper reviewing process and citations are polluted with political machinations. Ultimately, science is the entire corpus, from experimental design, through…
How is it short sighted? What other mechanism is there to evaluate the quality of scientific work? They haven't presented at meetings as far as I can tell, and not in ways that manifested in say, a proceedings publication. Their internet postings have been vague on specific details.
Am I to magically observe their experimental design and data collection? Or do I evaluate their work like I do all others - through the literature they present?
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#14I think this is a total hit piece. "They’re preying on people who are desperate for a vaccine," As a contributor (and a scientist) - I don't feel like I've been preyed upon, at all.
I didn't view it as a hit piece, because that's not the author talking. And while I don't necessarily agree with it, I do think that they're long on "Crowdfunded free HIV vaccine" and short on specifics.
And I'd still be pleased as punch if it worked.
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#15I think this is a total hit piece. "They’re preying on people who are desperate for a vaccine," As a contributor (and a scientist) - I don't feel like I've been preyed upon, at all.
I'm probably missing something obvious here, but who would be desperate for a vaccine?
If there were offering a cure, then I could see a complaint where they were preying on people with the disease who were desperate for a cure. Since that's not the case, do they mean the contributors, wanting to help develop the vaccine, are desperate, and being preyed upon? Because I hardly think that applies.
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when you're evaluating science, the paper itself, in the literature, is the only real way to evaluate it's quality. This is incredibly short-sighted. Overvaluation of the literature is exactly why people pollute the literature with fraudulent results. It's why paper reviewing process and citations are polluted with political machinations. Ultimately, science is the entire corpus, from experimental design, through…
How is it short sighted? What other mechanism is there to evaluate the quality of scientific work ? They haven't presented at meetings as far as I can tell, and not in ways that manifested in say, a proceedings publication. Their internet postings have been vague on specific details. Am I to magically observe their experimental design and data collection? Or do I evaluate their work like I do all others - through the…
Hey! You gave some great examples! Go to meetings. Talk to them. Send them emails asking about their work. Observe experimental design and data collection (if that's not public, that should be part of your judgement). Read non-publication sources (patents, regulatory submissions).
And then yes, do squishy stuff like "judge their character", "talk to their postdocs", "ask around about professional opinions". It's a conceit to operate as if science isn't a human endeavor.
Also you are now conflating the specific case of this project with the general case. Read their INDA, if you are really itching for details.
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#17I think this is a total hit piece. "They’re preying on people who are desperate for a vaccine," As a contributor (and a scientist) - I don't feel like I've been preyed upon, at all.
This is the way science should be funded.
Imagine if the pace of medical research moved at the pace of javascript frameworks.
We would all be fucking immortal. There would probably be some mutants though. But you gotta crack some eggs.
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it short sighted? What other mechanism is there to evaluate the quality of scientific work ? They haven't presented at meetings as far as I can tell, and not in ways that manifested in say, a proceedings publication. Their internet postings have been vague on specific details. Am I to magically observe their experimental design and data collection? Or do I evaluate their work like I do all others - through the…
Hey! You gave some great examples! Go to meetings. Talk to them. Send them emails asking about their work. Observe experimental design and data collection (if that's not public, that should be part of your judgement). Read non-publication sources (patents, regulatory submissions). And then yes, do squishy stuff like "judge their character", "talk to their postdocs", "ask around about professional opinions". It's a co…
I've read their white paper, it too is short on details. Right now, their experimental design and data collection aren't public. I go to meetings - I saw nothing about them at the largest infectious disease conference of the year this year.
I'm really not conflating anything. I'm very skeptical of any project getting this much attention that doesn't have some papers published. It's not the only step, but it's a step, and one that hasn't been done yet.
But, as an infectious disease epidemiologist, I'd be thrilled if I were wrong, and they were somehow paragons of vaccine research operating in stealth mode.
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#19I think this is a total hit piece. "They’re preying on people who are desperate for a vaccine," As a contributor (and a scientist) - I don't feel like I've been preyed upon, at all.
I didn't view it as a hit piece, because that's not the author talking. And while I don't necessarily agree with it, I do think that they're long on "Crowdfunded free HIV vaccine" and short on specifics. And I'd still be pleased as punch if it worked.
Hi! This is Reid, CEO of immunity project. Thanks for your comments! Our previous work is under review by a PRJ - our crowd funding is allowing us to do additional work which we will try to publish as quickly as possible! We have our white paper on our web site - if you want to discuss more details please shoot us an email at team@ImmunityProject.org
Re: Crowd-funded HIV vaccine project sparks debate
#20I think this is a total hit piece. "They’re preying on people who are desperate for a vaccine," As a contributor (and a scientist) - I don't feel like I've been preyed upon, at all.
This is the way science should be funded. Imagine if the pace of medical research moved at the pace of javascript frameworks. We would all be fucking immortal. There would probably be some mutants though. But you gotta crack some eggs.
Hi- Ian from Immunity Project here. Thank you for your support! We know our fundraising approach for this experiment is novel, and we believe it's the fastest way to get it done.