The PREDICT Project has been defunded. I suspect, not because of "the ascension of risk-averse bureaucrats", but rather because there are much better ways of mitigating future outbreaks than hyped 'science'. @nytimes.https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/health/predict-usaid-viruses.html …
-
Deze collectie tonen
-
I disagree with a lot of the assertions made in this article, and don't believe the way PREDICT was set up actually provided solutions to the specified goals.
@edwardcholmes,@arambaut, and myself wrote a little commentary about this a while back:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05373-w …1 antwoord 6 retweets 31 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
We can all agree that outbreak mitigation and prevention are incredibly important goals, which require investments in local capacity and equitable partnership. That is why we are big proponents of One Health approaches, or "Roots, not Parachutes":https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)30800-5 …
1 antwoord 16 retweets 46 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
But IMO, despite the hype, PREDICT (and the spinout, the Global Virome Project) never meaningfully set out to do science that would critically impact our ability to respond to current or future outbreaks.
4 antwoorden 3 retweets 16 vind-ik-leuksDeze collectie tonen -
Als antwoord op @K_G_Andersen
.
@K_G_Andersen - curious to hear your thoughts on how could PREDICT have been set up to be useful and effective for outbreak prediction? what constitutes science within the field?1 antwoord 0 retweets 0 vind-ik-leuks
Hi Nikhil - there are many ways, but too complex a topic to fit on Twitter. I'm hoping our publications help explain the issue better.
Het laden lijkt wat langer te duren.
Twitter is mogelijk overbelast of ondervindt een tijdelijke onderbreking. Probeer het opnieuw of bekijk de Twitter-status voor meer informatie.