My first post to this blog…..

After the publication of my book on September 2010, two events caught my attention. One was the cholera outbreak in Haiti in October 2010 and the other was NASA’s announcement in December 2010 on the discovery of an ‘alien form’ of bacteria that had come under fire from a number of researchers worldwide. While the former was strong evidence against the current knowledge on the ecology of Vibrio cholerae (dealt in detail in my book), the latter revealed the pitfalls in the current peer-reviewed system.

In the book, I had provided some examples of questionable research findings that are published in peer-reviewed journals. Some of these occur from human errors; however, one can also see intentional attempts of some researchers to promote their preconceived hypothesis. I had argued that it is possible to identify the flaws in scientific research by scrutinizing the subject matter thoroughly, which can save both time and money.

National Institute of Health (NIH) spends nearly 30 billion dollars an year for medical research. As per NIH website, 80% of the money is awarded through nearly 50,000 grants to more than 325,000 researchers. In spite of the huge amount of money invested in medical research, competition for grants has increased considerably in the recent years. With the current economic recession and the public outcry to reduce governmental spending, the situation may only become worse. Researchers will feel relieved if the current spending on science is at least maintained.

Under the current circumstances, is it worth to support all the current projects? By scrutinizing each research project thoroughly, is it possible to save money and improve the quality of science?

I will start with the recent cholera outbreak in Haiti and the lessons science can learn from it.

Next- Are researchers responsible for cholera deaths in Haiti?