Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why can’t we and SCI researcher in the world collaborate more?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why can’t we and SCI researcher in the world collaborate more?

    One has forums and meetings with docs where docs discuss, one has researchers and scientists discussing in publications.

    But what is the fruits of all this?

    Why can’t the world, make ONE session yearly to discuss regeneration on SCI, -I mean to fix SCI without rehab conference lectures bla bla etc.? Meaning to aim at the bull’s eye of the original problem?

    The World? The world is not that big. If some would say Ok for something like this, I’m in.

    #2
    Originally posted by Leif View Post
    One has forums and meetings with docs where docs discuss, one has researchers and scientists discussing in publications.

    But what is the fruits of all this?

    Why can’t the world, make ONE session yearly to discuss regeneration on SCI, -I mean to fix SCI without rehab conference lectures bla bla etc.? Meaning to aim at the bull’s eye of the original problem?

    The World? The world is not that big. If some would say Ok for something like this, I’m in.
    Good point Leif!
    I feel many researchers are not in touch with the SCI community as they should, but who is to blame? SCI people, researchers or both?
    I think researchers need our support and they have to ask for our support so that we feel the responsability to help them to find our cure. Without our help reserchers will take much longer to find the cure.
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

    Comment


      #3
      It’s clear that one has a long way to go. Just look at it in the US, one company has a clinical trial strategy, but then other from other universities wants to create a new hospital trial program? -And then one has others and more plans. There is so much waste, waste of energy, energy that could be otherwise being put into research and cures and trials, instead of this ongoing competition bogus taking place someplace. As a SCIed watching this it is terrible, and plain out heartfelt for the next of kin for the younger of us to watch this taking place in action and stupid real life. Terrible, is the word. If some are educated as for being able to create a cure for SCI, one should immediately stick together and fix it. All excuses aside of this is not good enough. -My thinking that is.

      Comment


        #4
        Leif I am poor ....I wished to be rich .

        Comment


          #5
          Leif,

          Conflicting agendas and inflated egos. You'll never get around this. Ever.

          Comment


            #6
            I agree with Schmeky, But I also feel we have some control over where the money our community does have is spent. Meaning the private foundations are not regulated like the government and can place their money in the hands of the most promising research where it will do the most good towards chronic injury research. They can also require reporting and updates from the researchers they support to make sure their financial investment is seeing a return.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Schmeky View Post
              Leif,

              Conflicting agendas and inflated egos. You'll never get around this. Ever.
              Conflicting agendas...yes. Inflated egos...I'm not so sure.

              When a bank gets robbed, authorities separate witnesses for a reason, so suggestive persuasion doesn't take place. Witnesses can come up with descriptions of suspects without others witnesses' descriptions muddling their memory.

              In researching something this complicated, a multi-prong approach is optimal. What we need to do is collaborate to raise funds at the public and private level so each "prong" gets more capital to work with. With the current level of capital endowed, having researchers try to collaborate under one agenda may do the same for the overall mission as having eye-witnesses collaborate to come up with a single muddled, biased description. It is not as optimal.
              No one ever became unsuccessful by helping others out

              Comment


                #8
                I know I'll get beat up for this, but it's not intended as a jab, merely an observation. There is an existing North American Clinical Trial Network in the USA. I may be wrong with the following statement, so someone please clarify this.

                Dr. Young is starting, what appears to be another parallel organization. So the funding is now competitive, resources and talent are being diverted, and the progress for both, with spit/conflicting funding, will most likely be slow.

                How does anyone know which to support or not support?

                Comment


                  #9
                  I say put all the top researchers in a up to date biulding with all the stuff they need. When they have figured out this nightmare , they can go home.
                  oh well

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I Agree

                    Originally posted by Schmeky View Post
                    I know I'll get beat up for this, but it's not intended as a jab, merely an observation. There is an existing North American Clinical Trial Network in the USA. I may be wrong with the following statement, so someone please clarify this.

                    Dr. Young is starting, what appears to be another parallel organization. So the funding is now competitive, resources and talent are being diverted, and the progress for both, with spit/conflicting funding, will most likely be slow.

                    How does anyone know which to support or not support?
                    Schmeky,
                    The one's who may disagree are the scientists. Many do have ego's larger then themselves, sad but true. They need to look at themselves in a mirror and look at what they do. It's not just SCI research, look how fragmented cancer and AID's research is, and much more time and money has been spent there. Yes progress is made, but much time and resources are wasted because scientific research doesn't colloborate very well. There is Decorin, ESC, Lithium, etc... studies being done around the world. Why isn't a think tank of the best scientists in the world getting together to discuss various approaches to solving these scientific problems on possibly a quartely basis. Maybe they don't want to share there results do to their own personal gain? I too will probably get crap for this, but I'm fed up with the entire medical industry, it couldn't even put a band-aid on a scratch without years of debate and clinical trails.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Chip D
                      I'm fed up with the entire medical industry
                      Chip,

                      I was talking to my wife the other day discussing medical research and the NIH's 30 billion dollar annual budget. We both concluded that we, as the common person, have realized no benefit we can see/feel/touch, and we don't know of anyone else that has seen tangible benefits from the billions and billions and billions of dollars spent on research.

                      And the band plays on . . . .

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Schmeky View Post
                        I know I'll get beat up for this, but it's not intended as a jab, merely an observation. There is an existing North American Clinical Trial Network in the USA. I may be wrong with the following statement, so someone please clarify this.

                        Dr. Young is starting, what appears to be another parallel organization. So the funding is now competitive, resources and talent are being diverted, and the progress for both, with spit/conflicting funding, will most likely be slow.

                        How does anyone know which to support or not support?
                        Schmeky,
                        I am wondering the same things, I hope someone can clarify all this, otherwise we need to find out ourself. This confusion slows down the cure process.
                        In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by rjames View Post
                          I agree with Schmeky, But I also feel we have some control over where the money our community does have is spent. Meaning the private foundations are not regulated like the government and can place their money in the hands of the most promising research where it will do the most good towards chronic injury research. They can also require reporting and updates from the researchers they support to make sure their financial investment is seeing a return.
                          rjames,

                          I agree that we have some control on the situation. BTW did you have any success trying to join together private foundations to concetrate money they spend on the more promising research?
                          In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X