Knowing When and How to Use Medical Products
A Shared Responsibility for the FDA and CMS
Category Archives: science policy
Knowing When and How to Use Medical Products
A lot of sensible advice here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHryMtEBkB4
A combination of Dr. Stark’s name and the recent time I’ve spend absorbing the Marvel Comic Universe through Luke Cage [link] led to a culture insight, though. Some of my favorite superheros’ origin would have me believe that irreproducible research is shortest path to greatness. Maybe not for the (usually evil) scientist, but still.
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 7:27 AM
Subject: [scisip] New Team Science Report from Academy of Medical Science
Given conversations on this list about Team Science, I think you will find this new report from the Academy of Medical Sciences (UK) to be quite interesting. They took a career-impact approach to studying the issues and have some fairly specific recommendations for stakeholders.
From: Ben Marwick
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:06 PM
Subject: [Reproducible] New paper on reproducible research in archaeology
You might be interested to know of a peer-reviewed paper on reproducible research in archaeology that I’ve just had published.
The paper owes a big debt to the UW eScience Institute, especially the Reproducibility and Open Science Working Group. So this paper is a kind of tribute to all of you in that group who have helped me make sense of reproducibility, thanks!
Here’s the citation and a link to the PDF:
Marwick, B. (2016). Computational reproducibility in archaeological
research: Basic principles and a case study of their implementation.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1-27. doi:
All the gory details of the case study paper are here:
https://github.com/benmarwick/1989-excavation-report-Madjebebe so you can give it a try. It works on my machine 😉
This article in ScienceMag caught my attention and then got forwarded to everyone: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/funding/2015/12/nih-drops-special-10-set-aside-aids-research
It looks like GBD stuff, but they never said IHME or GBD. But digging deeper… it is! http://report.nih.gov/info_disease_burden.aspx
Now we can say it is definitely our data even though the Science article doesn’t mention us.
Lots of material on Reproducible Research in my backlog… I’m going to get it out there for you (or at least for future-me).
From: Reproducible On Behalf Of Ben Marwick
Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 9:53 PM
Subject: [Reproducible] Language Log: Replicability vs. reproducibility — or is it the other way around?
A popular academic blog on linguistics just put up a post with a nice discussion of definitions of reproducibility in science:
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Reviewer (2014)
On behalf of PLOS and the PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases editorial team, I would like to thank you for participating in the peer review process this past year at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases We very much appreciate your valuable input in 2014. We know there are many claims on your time and expertise but with your help, we have continued to publish an influential, lively and highly accessed Open Access journal. Simply put, we could not do it without you and the thousands of other volunteers for PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases and the other PLOS journals who graciously contributed time reviewing manuscripts.
A public “Thank You” to our 2014 reviewers – including you – was published in February 2015.
(2015) PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2014 Reviewer Thank You. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9(2): e0003621. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003621
The Reproducibility and Open Science (ROS) Working Group recently finished up a form to begin to gather information on Reproducible Products from the community.
Please take a few minutes to submit information on any product (peer-reviewed manuscript, preprint, or other product). It is only about 20 questions with many multiple choice question.
The google form can be accessed @
Please feel free to let us know if you have any questions or comments.
From: Abraham D. Flaxman
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 4:40 PM
Subject: [Reproducible] licenses and reproducibility: the scholarly communication lens
The recent discussion on reproducibility and licensing inspired me to read something historical about UW and software licensing that has been on my desk for a while. I think others on the list might find it interesting as well, so I scanned a copy for you: https://www.dropbox.com/s/79k92iwm20159of/williams_barnett_digital_ventures_2009.pdf?dl=0
I particularly like the idea that software is communication, and the university is an institute that is good at scholarly communication and at teaching. I think there is some framing here that could be valuable for reproducible research as well. Irreproducible results are, in a sense, a communication failure, and a lot of what we are talking about on this list are different ways to improve our scholarly communication.