Julie Rehmeyer's 'Through the Shadowlands'
Writer Never Give Up talks about Julie Rehmeyer's new book "Through the Shadowlands: A Science Writer's Odyssey into an Illness Science Doesn't Understand" and shares an interview with Julie ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Is there a need for more co-operation between research groups?

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS Discussion' started by msf, May 17, 2016.

  1. msf

    msf Senior Member

    It seems like a long time since the last ´big´ study. I know I shouldn´t complain, since the research situation is immeasurably better than it was even 10 years ago, but I do get frustrated by the fact that there doesn´t seem to be much co-operation between research groups or much cross-checking going on between them.

    It seems to me that there are just a few plausible theories out there (let´s save the arguments about which theories are or are not plausible for another thread). But it will take ages to work out which is the correct one (or which are the correct ones) if there is no concerted effort to check each group´s findings. I guess the problem is that everyone is busy working on their own theory, and doesn´t have time to check other groups´ results/conclusions.

    In my opinion it would be better for new studies to focus on the two or three theories that have the most support (autoimmunity and chronic infection for a start) rather than trying to explore new areas. This would be putting all the research eggs in two or three baskets, but it would make it less likely that, in ten years time, we will have just discovered that research group A was right after all, and that if anyone had tried to confirm their findings at the time the search for a cure would be much further along.
    Justin30 and PennyIA like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page