Here's my hot take of the day. Unless you're doing research on an actual intervention, your paper does not need a clinical implication section They suck (including mine) and it undermines the value of basic science. You're buying into the idea that research isn't valuable unless it's applied. - ThreadSky

kevinmking.bsky.social • 38 days ago

Here's my hot take of the day. Unless you're doing research on an actual intervention, your paper does not need a clinical implication section

They suck (including mine) and it undermines the value of basic science. You're buying into the idea that research isn't valuable unless it's applied.

Comments

linzayearst.bsky.social•38 days ago

“Basic research” refers to the kind of scientific investigation that aims to increase our understanding of fundamental principles and phenomena without immediate practical application in mind. It’s driven by curiosity and the desire to expand knowledge.

linzayearst.bsky.social•38 days ago

Thus by definition if there is an immediate practical application it is no longer basic research.

But certainly the aim is to inform applied work at some point and I suspect that speaking to that goal is reasonable, however far off.

adamsledd.bsky.social•38 days ago

i'm not a researcher; i do hang out with them occasionally. in social work we emphasize "research-informed practice/practice-informed research." i know the realities of implementation, but i feel like it should at least be acknowledged.

tkaiser.science•38 days ago

Interesting. In psychotherapy, there is something very similar (evidence-based practice, practice-based evidence). If this cycle works well, it is enriching for both sides of the field.

adamsledd.bsky.social•38 days ago

agreed! in my field of recovery support, the body of knowledge is not as old or prolific as clinical. there has been lots of practice and the research is catching up, and there is a lot of immediate utility.

whitneyringwald.bsky.social•38 days ago

I mostly agree. However, I do think it’s important to be clear how our research is clinically relevant, however distal. Else, what are we doing here? The number of angels on the head of the pin is well-established by now.

kevinmking.bsky.social•38 days ago

I think if we're doing basic research clinical phenomenon the importance is self evident. We should be thinking about how we're refining or refuting theories. It's not worth it to make baseless, ill informed speculation about how our findings might apply in practice.

whitneyringwald.bsky.social•38 days ago

Yup, agreed. I count careful, thoughtful refining/refuting of theory to fall under the umbrella of “clinically relevant.” Maybe my umbrella is too big :)

kevinmking.bsky.social•37 days ago

Well yes, if that's your perspective I agree too. We mostly study clinical phenomenon, right?

It's when we are asked to speculate about intervention that I balk.

ereinbergs.bsky.social•37 days ago

Practice implications and policy implications. Sir I am not a policy scholar nor do I make policy think tank money. My policy recs are tax the rich and universal healthcare and fully funded public schools what else do you want from me

whitneyringwald.bsky.social•37 days ago

Yes! Relatedly, I don’t think people should feel pressured to have a stand on most policies, period. Most of us have way too little knowledge to know what a good solution is in complex institutions or geopolitical matters

whitneyringwald.bsky.social•37 days ago

I didn’t state my view well. I think we should have some sense of how our basic research could be practically useful, however indirect, but I don’t think we need to have a specific vision (or really can as non experts), and absolutely do not think we should publish those ideas.

whitneyringwald.bsky.social•37 days ago

Also, I 💯 do this in papers out of I guess some blind commitment to convention, and at times the will of coauthors and reviewers. So no high ground here. But I feel emboldened by this thread to ~be the change I want to see~

ellynrbutler.bsky.social•38 days ago

I recently interviewed for a fellowship where it seemed that one of the interviewers did not care about my research unless it had immediate clinical implications. It was very frustrating. I personally think it is cool and worthwhile to know more about how the brain works either way.

tkaiser.science•38 days ago

Not sure if this is what you mean, but it can be helpful for clinicians (*if* they read your paper) to see how your results might be relevant down the line. Challenging widespread ideas about a certain disorder can be relevant and doesn't need an intervention.

tkaiser.science•38 days ago

But in general, I agree that there should be less of this. For one of the papers I am most proud of, we were forced by a reviewer in several rounds to write something relevant to clinical practice. Unnecessary, but now it's there.

kevinmking.bsky.social•38 days ago

Yeah, sometimes and maybe. But as a routine matter of course I think we are mostly forced to be overly speculative.

craiganthonyrs.bsky.social•38 days ago

Some cold water to cool down the hot take, I'm going with an it depends. Because even outside of an actual intervention, there's a lot of research with very direct clinical implications too

kevinmking.bsky.social•38 days ago

I mean, mostly no. I think it's a fantasy. Even most clinical research doesn't ultimately impact practice.

Why play pretend with basic research?

kevinmking.bsky.social•38 days ago

My thinking is informed by how hard it is to get anything to actually inform practice. Even developing a hot new effective intervention is just the first step.

You have to figure out feasibility, training, sustainability, contextual influences on implementation. Even scalability to larger pops.

kevinmking.bsky.social•38 days ago

There's SO MUCH distance between even most intervention research and actual practice.

So my beef is that it's *extraordinarily* rare for any one basic science study to have immediate implications for clinical work. And even if it does, it's exceedingly unlikely to actually have an impact.

craiganthonyrs.bsky.social•38 days ago

That's totally fair. I suppose thinking about basic science studies this makes sense. I might be on the fence of studies that seem somewhere in between basic and more applied in different ways.

the main thing seems not overextended the results of any studies (which is common)

kevinmking.bsky.social•38 days ago

For example, (even hotter take) most studies that claim to inform JITAIs will never actually accomplish that goal because it's so hard to get any intervention implemented with fidelity. Being digital and adaptive doesnt make that any easier.

kevinmking.bsky.social•38 days ago

@craiganthonyrs.bsky.social , I'm sure you can come up with good examples where perhaps there are implications.

But I think the basic point is that we should value basic science for what it is. And forcing so much research to consider clinical intervention inadvertently undermines it's worth.

mattmattoni.bsky.social•38 days ago

The clinical speculation often ends up being an ecological fallacy too (between-p study, within-p implications)

doctorzen.net•38 days ago

Hypothesis: This is a predictable outcome of so much basic research being funded by health institutions (NIH, HHMI, etc.).

If a researcher cannot show relevance to health, it makes both researcher and funder look bad.

mp-grosz.bsky.social•38 days ago

Here are my counter arguments: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-023-09777-7

kevinmking.bsky.social•38 days ago

I'm sorry but I only accept counter arguments in the form of shit posts.

(/s, thanks, I'll check it out!)

mp-grosz.bsky.social•38 days ago

Here is the gist of it

teaguerhenry.bsky.social•37 days ago

Wait, you're telling me that a study in 20 children with ADHD showing an increased correlation between 2 arbitrarily defined brain regions doesn't represent a paradigm shift in how we could treat ADHD with respect to possible targeted pharmaceuticals?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply