This is what passes for a publishable opinion piece from one of their professors?

I’ve been following the work of Professor David Nutt even before the newspapers took interest, since sitting on a working party on drug regulation for the Academy of Medical Sciences. As a newcomer, I wanted to find the “facts on drug harm”, and read Nutt’s A tale of two Es – ecstasy and ethanol (alcohol) – published in 2006.

Well surely the good Professor Wolff means he started here. Right? ….right?

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

The rules for this blog meme are quite simple.
-Post the link and first sentence from the first blog entry for each month of the past year.
I originally did this meme, after seeing similar posted by Janet Stemwedel and John Lynch. Last year’s edition is here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Just how critical is a supportive “Environment” to the successful conduct of a research project supported by the NIH? As construed in the current review criteria, this criterion comes at the end of the list. In my own experiences reviewing so far (mostly under the old criteria; the new scheme has only been in place for two standard rounds of review) the Environment is almost always found to be “highly supportive” or some such. The only consistent variation from this has to do with investigators who are more transitioning than established. In those cases I have had reviewers tell me at times they mean criticism to be a help to the applicant, a prod to the institution to support the PI a little better. Every once in awhile, however, there can be issues in a specific proposal that put the focus on the Environment and the support of the University for the PI.
A provocative comment and my own response triggered these musings.

Read the rest of this entry »