Fingerprint science should be like medical science

This article in Nature looks at the science behind identification by fingerprints. As you read it, you will note how the technical side of identification meshes with practical and empirical reality, and how biases can and will be introduced. A good place for “kappa” studies, and examining a complex human system rationally.

The most important disease(s) is(are)?

Judging by television news, you might think that breast cancer is the only disease that exists. If we wanted to spend money on the disease or group of diseases that results (by a considerable margin) in the greatest lost of quality of life years the world over, denying young (and older) people of their lives and quality of life, we would spend our money on mood disorders, schizophrenia, and bipolar illness.

Psychiatry is often knocked by the rest of medicine as being relatively unscientific (ie its all about talking). But the psychiatric community has probably gone farther than most in putting (with some success) their discipline on a scientific basis. One of the remarkable things about psychiatry is the presence of a codified scientifically based diagnostic process. This is diagnosis at the RDC or gold standard. How this is done is quite a remarkable story in itself. Science has an ongoing series of article about the latest revision of the DSM. The articles so far are 1) Proposed Revisions to Psychiatry’s Canon Unveiled, 2) DSM-V at a Glance, 3) Behavioral Addictions Debut in Proposed DSM-V, and 4) Experts Map the Terrain of Mood Disorders.

CONNECT VIA MYVPN TO GET WORKING LINKS TO SCIENCE!

We (Canada) botched mammography!

Referring to the CNBSS trial at the Radiologists Society of North America annual meeting recently, Dr. Dan Kopans, a prominent American radiologist states the study was “botched”, although he apparently didn’t give any supporting statements. In response, Dr. Steven Narod, a Toronto epidemiologist and leader in breast cancer research, called Dr. Kopans remarks “scientific misconduct.” Dr. Narod also is quoted in the Medical Post article here as stating that “I think he knows absolutely nothing about epidemiology.”

Why do we need to know epidemiology anyway?

PS: YOU MIGHT NEED TO NOW ENROLL IN “www.CanadianHealthcareNetwork.ca” TO GET ACCESS TO MEDICAL POST CONTENT. SORRY ABOUT THE INCOVENIENCE.