1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
The Pathway to Prevention (P2P) for ME/CFS: A Dangerous Process
Gabby Klein gives an overview of the P2P process, shedding light on the pitfalls with advice as to what we can do in protest ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

The 20 Years Ago Today Series III: the Most Influential Researchers of the Last 20 Years

Discussion in 'Phoenix Rising Articles' started by Phoenix Rising Team, May 12, 2012.

  1. Phoenix Rising Team

    Phoenix Rising Team

    Messages:
    649
    Likes:
    995
    View the Post on the Blog
    SickOfSickness likes this.
  2. oceanblue

    oceanblue Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,174
    Likes:
    343
    UK
    Someone has been busy with their calculator. Really interesting work, thank you, and I think it does give a good measure of who has been most influential in the field.
  3. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    840
    UK
    Just a pity it does not mention "who's right" - SW we know was not (despite his volume of papers) - surely influence in ME/CFS - the disease itself - lies with all the researchers finding all the pathologies and advancing understanding of the disease, not a tally of/dependant on how many papers published or quoted.
  4. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    264
    Long Beach, CA
    I think one reason the psych lobby (I can't bring myself to call them researchers) "score" so high is that they cite each other like crazy. It becomes very circular and self-referential. And they certainly do not cite studies showing biological abnormalities, which refute their pet theories.

    Good scientific papers will cite studies whose results conflict with the author's thesis, and discuss possible explanations for the disparity. Good scientists, when forming a hypothesis, try to find out that fits all the facts (or at least they mention and try to explain the outliers). What bugs me most about the psych model proponents is that they practice junk science. Anything that doesn't fit their theory --and that's a huge body of knowledge-- they simply ignore and don't mention. They have no respect for the scientific process. Add to that the fact that they have received most of the research funding and it's no wonder their papers are cited most.

    But being highly cited is not the same thing as advancing the state of knowledge. Ultimately it will be the researchers who unravel the mystery of this disease who are influential. The obstructionists with their junk science, if they are remembered at all, will be quoted as examples of the quaint and backward, the way today we look at those who said that educating women would cause their uteruses to shrink. Unfortunately, in the meantime they use their influence to do a lot of damage.
    Enid likes this.
  5. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    840
    UK
    I quite agree ixchelkali. Well said.
  6. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    436
    Raleigh, NC
    I think that's a very good point...much more money has been spent on physiological research in the US I would guess that no single subject has gotten more research than CBT...on the other hand the biological studies are spread all over the place...a bit on the HPA axis here, a bit on natural killer cells here - the body of work most of the fields of research is quite low...

    I would also guess that CBT researchers have been pretty good at getting published in high attention Journals as well - that makes a big difference.

    I don't know why that piece came out in italics...that's kind of weird..

  7. taniaaust1

    taniaaust1 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,884
    Likes:
    4,826
    Sth Australia
    Thanks for this Cort. Its a very interesting read.

    I think everyone knew who'd had that most influence on the field and this proves it.
  8. Guido den Broeder

    Guido den Broeder *****

    Messages:
    278
    Likes:
    178
    Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    I am interested in what scientists do for ME, since that's the disease I suffer from. CFS is not a disease.

    Some scientists with a significant impact on our understanding of ME are: Baraniuk, Chia, Hyde, Kuratsune, Suhadolnik.

    I would not call Gijs (not: Gus) Bleijenberg a scientist.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page