Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular,
the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.
Too little too late? It’s an issue that causes confusion in the public’s mind and conflated with other beliefs about interventions, nature and causation. I’ve just started subscribing to the RSS feed of the American Council of Science and Health’s Facts and Fears column which is links to other dissections of this case.
If that was controversial how about homeopathy? Mike O’Brien, minister of state for health, says it’s a controversy but others argue he’s just not making a decision about whether the government should fund it on the NHS. Mixed views on doc2doc about the overdose stunt by the 1023 campaign. I never get tired of arguing whilst I care about science.
The plan is to “gather views from a range of stakeholders, including CILIP members, about what CILIP should look like in 5 and 10 years time. Key questions the big conversation will address include what CILIP’s business model could be, what it should offer to members, to the library and information profession, and society.”.
There was a certain amount of confusion and angst around the process of setting up the Project Board. I think Elspeth Hyams puts it well in her editorial in the latest issue of Update (going semi digital this year incidentally) “The panel will umpire the debate, collect feedback and manage the process. Not do the talking. That’s for you.”
What the intial flurry showed was the strong feelings that surround CILIP as an organisation. While far from univerally positive I would say that was more encouraging than indifference. It will be intriguing to see how much interest can be generated from those not already members or ex-members. Hopefully also we can avoid the modern tendency to excessive snark in online forums (a little always comes in handy mind).
I would personally welcome input on a badge for this process other than the ‘Big Conversation’ due to associations that brand carries.
It really isn’t the news of the century, but the New Scientist has erected a firewall since I was last there. I have been signed up to the ScienceDirect alerts for the New Scientist which give a single sentence ‘abstract’ to the article. It used to be great-just go to the NS website and get the full text for free (well, after some digging as the title is usually mysteriously different from what ScienceDirect gives you). Now they have a very cordial message suggesting if you share your personal details, then you will then have 9 articles per month free to peruse. It sounds fairly reasonable, actually. What do you think? Any eyebrow-raising schemes that you’ve noticed? I suppose we are slowly marching to this sort of semi-free access model now.
As you may know, data.gov has launched this week in beta mode! Datasets have been tagged and you are also able to browse through the whole lot. I’ve just watched a talk by Tim Berners-Lee about why he wants, and we ought to demand, ‘raw data now!’ I’ve added it here, because it is really worth a look. His enthusiasm is infectious and I think he is a brilliant communicator with zero ego.
Memorable quotations from the video: “data is brown and boxy” and “data is relationships”. I really liked the mention of ’scientists with half-formed ideas in their heads’-the suggestion being that having access to data will give them a push forward.
What does this force to make things open say about our role as guardians of little collections of information (trial registers, resource libraries)? I think some people will be threatened and some will hug their data even tighter, but others will get engaged and profit from this.
While the TrendsMap (‘real time local twitter trends’) is not quite government information, it is quite clever. It connects Twitter data to a Google map giving an overview of what is being said where, and if you click a topic, by whom. When I check just now, ‘olympic’ was hovering prominently over Vancouver-how very appropriate.
Hey, I found something on Twitter and thought I’d share it here. How’s that for a criteria of success? @WoodsieGirl, who herself found it through @bengoldacre, linked to a very interesting article by Michael Clarke on the Scholarly Kitchen entitled “Hasn’t Scientific Publishing Been Disrupted Already?” It asks the very valid question that, given the world of web 1.0, let alone web 2.0, you’d surely have expcted expensive scholarly journals to have long since disappeared, and that instead scientists would be blogging or tweeting their results, or something. Many still predict it in fact, about how Facebook and Twitter will revolutionize scientific communication. But the web hasn’t changed anything yet, at least nothing substantial, so why do we expect any social networks to change the world of science now? Michael raises some very important points that, I think, go a long way towards explaining the longevity of the scientific publishing model, and no, peer-review isn’t one key among them. Take a look. It’s a good reminder of how technology will change nothing if the culture of a community ain’t interested…
I missed the CILIP in London session about Legible London (did it go ahead in the snow?). This looked at how signage design can encourage walking and is being piloted in Central London along the South Bank and in Covent Garden as well as Richmond and Twickenham. I like the way that design and information can come together so seamlessly.
I have had something about exploring options for ebooks in my objectives for years. Alongside that objective has been the risk assessment that the lack of a clear best solution has the potential to mean bad investments.
Some interesting recent blog posts considering the uptake of ebooks - firstly Dan D’Agostino guesting over on Teleread (a very vigorous ebook blog) with “The strange case of Academic Libraries and the ebooks nobody reads”. The comments on this item are highly recommended. He suggests how the monopoly position of publishers and the need for librarians to be “leading the way” may have influenced the way academic libraries have purchased these resources. A follow on post looks at what might be done and how DRM embedded in the system could leave publishers with great control.
Responding to Dan and bringing matters closer to home is “Who is reading your ebooks?” from the Krafty Librarian. She contends that the current purchasing and use made of medical books in a hospital setting is rather different. The model for her is more one of purchasing specific titles that are used very much as reference items rather than for sustained reading. An obvious UK example would be the various Oxford Textbooks, Harrisons Internal Medicine etc. These are not books for loan they are quick look ups. I would agree that online is definitely the way forward for these books. Krafty is less sure on ebook devices and how these will fit.
From my perspective we have a mixed model locally. There have been some bundles of ebooks bought (across NHS England) to address a perceived gap for mental health staff. Working with colleagues across our part of town we have collaborated with further title by title purchases targeting high demand items and some of the “big book” type items. More recently we have bought UpToDate which I would describe as an ebook.
Generally uptake has been poor. Reasons might be:
the wrong titles – some fairly mixed mental health stuff was chosen
unreliable systems - access through www.library.nhs.uk has been broken for some time now
lack of ready access to a PC at the time access was required
poor publicity – linking through to all the titles from our catalogue (NewhamCat) has been most effective
weak interfaces – one page a time being the norm, no easy printing etc
lack of desire on the part of the user – we do not often get asked for ebooks
problems getting in – Athens is confusing for users
or any combination of these and other factors?
The exception is UpToDate. Avoiding the need for a login surely helps as does the way the content is served and ease of search. But in the end a tailored interface is not going to be the solution for every product.
As previously mentioned there are increasing numbers of mobile devices in evidence around the hospital. The medical students are nearly all in the iPhone club. I think that some successor device to this is likely to be where we need to serve our content (ebook and other). I cannot see the ebook devices standing alone in the face of device convergence. The explosion in alternative devices that is underway seems likely to lead to mostly failures.
I’ll be looking to continue buying very specific titles to meet specific needs and aiming for as many of those big books to be electronic as possible.
No not inviting Descartes and Spinoza to your library for a tour but the result of budget tightening and space restrictions. The library element of where I work is shrinking in space and resources and what to do with the resources we have left in terms of organisation and dissemination – do we need a traditional library management system at all? Is it easier to go back to spreadsheets and basic filing systems for things such as inter-library loans (our one large-ish need for the system that isn’t working now and is too expensive)? Should I experiment with Open Source (thought I’d come late to the debate but no) especially since it’s risk free as we don’t have much to play with? Have been looking at Koha, Evergreen and the OLE project (bit late for us) but fear retendering will get more of the same trad systems as innovation is scary etc), any tips on how to avoid this (we’re public sector ouch)? Questions questions…
Happy New year, all. Sorry I’ve been so quiet- one of my resolutions is to make time to blog weekly. Another resolution is to try not to do too much. Late in 2009 I found myself up to my eyeballs and it was mainly my working arrangements. I badly need to sort this out in 2010.
One of the Harvard Business Review’s predictions for 2010 is that “more people will maintain two sources of income than ever before.” Slightly depressing, I think. Why can’t we get by on one source of income? What does this say about people’s faith in their employer? Don’t we enter a relationship with our employer that stipulates that they will take care of us (financially/educationally/structurally) and we will return the favour by helping them acheive their objectives? HBR says this two-job norm is a ’safety net’ whereby knowledge workers become ‘entrepreneurs’. Really-not sad apples saddled with two or more jobs? I think the idea of being self-employed can be seductive-until tax time rolls around!
I agree that ‘more diverse’ work arrangements (#4) are increasing-at least for those who have the luxury of teleworking.
I’m hesitant to agree with #5 about organisations behaving less paternalistically towards employees. Yes, I have had a menu of benefits, but in every other aspect we are not in control. Has anyone had an experience of ‘adult choice’ here?
Cilip watchers will recall a bit of a flurry of debate regarding the introduction of mandatory “light touch” CPD not so long ago (including here and on CILIP Communities).
This has resurfaced with a chance to have some input via this survey (open till 15th Jan). It is worth noting that input is invited from non members and members alike (and you might win an Amazon voucher for your trouble).
Personally I think mandatory CPD is overdue as is some kind of electronic system for logging it. I think all professional organisations should now offer a means for people to record their work and CPD activities. This should then be selectively shareable via a public section of the professional organisation website. In effect I should be able to present a regularly updated professional profile to the world – through my association with the body in question. Something like this would likely be richer than most job applications allow and would be a boon to employers looking to get a better idea of a candidate. It could form the basis of networking and link through the various online forums.
