A quick link to an open letter – I do not endorse the opinions expressed there…
Now you spend your time writing proposals rather than doing research. Worse, because your proposals are judged by your competitors you cannot follow your curiosity, but must spend your effort and talents on anticipating and deflecting criticism rather than on solving the important scientific problems. They’re not the same thing: you cannot put your past successes in a proposal, because they are finished work, and your new ideas, however original and clever, are still unproven. It is proverbial that original ideas are the kiss of death for a proposal; because they have not yet been proved to work (after all, that is what you are proposing to do) they can be, and will be, rated poorly. Having achieved the promised land, you find that it is not what you wanted after all.
Looks like ‘Research 2.0′ need to be installed there.
Micro- and macroclimate factors certainly have more influence on our health than being reflected by current research. A new PLOS study now finds that
facilities built more than 50 years ago, characterised by large windows and high ceilings, had greater ventilation than modern naturally ventilated rooms (40 versus 17 air changes per hour) … Old-fashioned clinical areas with high ceilings and large windows provide greatest protection. Natural ventilation costs little and is maintenance free.
Do you know the Barker hypothesis? It says that early life events may induce later disease. A new study in the Eur J Clin Nutr now reports
Children whose mothers had a 25(OH)-vitamin D concentration in pregnancy >75 nmol/l had an increased risk of eczema on examination at 9 months (OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.15â€“9.29, P=0.025) and asthma at age 9 years (OR 5.40, 95% CI, 1.09â€“26.65, P=0.038) compared to children whose mothers had a concentration of <30 nmol/l.
These are quite remarkable results. I wonder only why two forthcoming studies click + click using food frequency questionnaires will describe only a reduction of respiratory infection rates (which is not too bad in the context of the hygiene hypothesis) with no effects on allergy.
Food intake measures are probably not good enough for internal dose estimates as main source of vitamin D production is sunlight, isnÂ´t it?
12 March 2007 – the long awaited AJCN paper is now out. I have already feared that stratification by FFQ is only partially relevant. Indeed, the authors could have used also college graduate level which increased with intake catgeories 1-2-3-4 from 53-74-80-82% with all the problems by SES dependency (and not corrected for in model 2+3 in table 2 or model A…D in table 3). The discussion seems to be also far away from being an objective report on the immunology of vitamin D actions…