A political philosopher's reflections on politics, philosophy, science, medicine and law. "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity" (Immanuel Kant, 1784).
posted by Colin Farrelly at 6:55 AM
Last year I published 2 articles in journals of the Royal Society, and one of the unique features of their journals is that they have a policy of "open peer review". This means that, should a paper be accepted and published, they publish the referee reports, editorial comments as well as the author's response to revisions etc. For example, see the review report on my latest paper in Biology Letters here.
As an author the peer review process can certainly make one feel vulnerable, especially when reviewers emphasize shortcomings of one's original submission. But this process can also be invaluable, especially to junior scholars who are not yet familiar with the "ins and outs" of publishing. Firstly, you can see how the peer review process can actually substantively improve one's paper. This was certainly the case for my paper mentioned above. I received expert feedback from both reviewers that I was happy to incorporate as the suggestions from both referees greatly improved the argumentation I developed.
The peer review process also reveals the common challenges authors face- the need to respond to many different points while trying to keep within prescribed word counts. That was certainly a challenge for me with revising the paper. As I added new details I had to delete something else. And doing the latter then opens one up one's arguments to other potential concerns.
Grappling with an R&R requires an author to make sage decisions about the tradeoffs they are willing to undertake to meet the concerns raised by referees, while remaining faithful to their own judgement of what they want to, and can feasible, achieve in a paper. And all this has to be achieved within both time and word count constraints. Not an easy task!
Getting a glimpse into the peer review process can help junior scholars appreciate how much time, effort and persistence is required to take a paper from the "initial submission" stage to a potential "publication". The publishing process is no doubt the most stressful part of being an academic. But it is also one of the most rewarding parts of the career. When one finally sees the finished product come out in print in the journal there is an incredible sense of achievement, something that would not be experienced if publishing did not have the rigours of the peer review process. My experience of the open peer review policy has been very positive, I felt it was handled in a genuinely collaborative spirit and certainly helped strengthened my articles. So I am appreciative of the time referees and editors devoted to the papers.
Cheers,
Colin
posted by Colin Farrelly at 9:36 AM
This week I received the good news that I now have a publisher for my new book-in-progross on aging and geroscience.
This is a research topic I have been working on for nearly 20 years, and I am I refining and developing these ideas into a comprehensive book that integrates insights from the intellectual history of public health, the biology of aging, communication science and bioethics/philosophy. It has been a real labour of love.
This past week I also received a new poster I had purchased for my bedroom, the one above depicting Sisyphus facing the endless task of pushing the rock up a steep hill. This imagery will come in handy as I undertake a year of heavy "intellectual lifting" to complete the writing of this book that has consumed most of my research for the past decade.
Cheers,
Colin
posted by Colin Farrelly at 8:20 AM
Over the past two decades, research has emerged showing that opportunities for risky play are crucial for healthy physical, mental and emotional development. Children need these opportunities to develop spatial awareness, coordination, tolerance of uncertainty and confidence.
Despite this, in many nations risky play is now more restricted than ever, thanks to misconceptions about risk and a general undervaluing of its benefits.
....The goal of promoting risky play isn’t to turn cautious children into thrill-seekers, it’s simply to allow them to take incremental risks at whatever pace they choose, say proponents. “What risky play looks like for one child will be totally different to what it looks like for another,” says child psychologist Helen Dodd at the University of Exeter, UK.
Cheers,
Colin
posted by Colin Farrelly at 12:32 PM
As noted early this year (see here, here and here), this year marks the 25th year anniversary of my "professing career". This milestone, coupled with my kids all growing up and moving on with their own lives, has provoked some serious introspection in me in terms of thinking about the new and future career challenges I would like to undertake in the remaining years of my career.
I am keen to pursue novel opportunities for exploring both teaching and research at the intersection of biomedical science/ science communication and public policy, as well as political theory and ethics. I have substantive research projects already underway for the next 3 years, but also some longer term ideas for projects spanning the next 20+ years. At least in my own mind, I see the 25th year anniversary of my career as roughly the "mid-point" of my academic career, broadly defined. This may be overly optimistic but my enthusiasm about research and teaching show no signs of waning so I see the next quarter of a century as an incredible opportunity to address some really unique challenges and opportunities that humanity faces.
The major personal accomplishment for me this year, with respect to research, was the completion and publication of my new book Classics of Political Thought for Today: An Introduction, a book that was a quarter of a century in the making.
This year was also an eventful one for my research on geroscience and climate change, with a number of invitations to present my ideas which then provided the fuel to me writing some new work at the intersection of geroscience and climate science.
According to PubMed, 2024 is my most productive year for journal publications, at least for those dealing with biomedical issues. However this really reflects the happenstance that a bunch of things just happened to come out officially in print in the same calendar year. There are always "peak and trough" years for publications. The peak of this year is not something I could sustain year after year. Nonetheless, it certainly is a research year I feel sense of accomplishment about.
My journal publications that appeared in print this year are:
A few distinctive developments stand out to me about the past year. Firstly, I have learned to communicate complex ideas visually. This is a result of publishing a good deal of science journal articles that utilize visuals. I have been refining this skill set over the past 2 years or so, and I was surprised by how much I enjoy it, as well as how much I have learned from the process. Expressing ideas visually actually alters how one conceptualizes and communicates one's ideas and insights.
Here are my favorite visual images that appeared in print this year:
The image below is from the Open Science paper
Secondly, I had a few things posted online this year, which is novel for me. These include my inaugural Peacock lecture, my plenary lecture from RCCN workshop on “Climate Change and Aging" and an online presentation in the Royal Society's "Ecology and Evolution" seminar series. I was also invited to design a 25 minute video lecture on the ethics of geroscience for geroscientists which is not currently publicly accessible.
I look forward to the research developments of 2025!
Cheers,
Colin
posted by Colin Farrelly at 9:01 AM
Sex differences
Early evidence suggests that GLP-1RAs produce different effects on women and men. “It is important to look for and understand sex differences, especially when it comes to metabolically targeted therapies, because we have long known there are fundamental sex differences in metabolic physiology,” says Susan Cheng, director of population health sciences at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars–Sinai in Los Angeles, California. “In effect, if the metabolic substrate differs, then we can expect that the response to a metabolically targeted therapeutic will likely differ in some way even if there are many similarities.”
As with all drugs that might benefit large populations of patients, Cheng says, “we should make efforts to understand sex differences in their on- and off-target effects.” As an example, she mentions statins, which “clearly benefit both sexes, but there is a statistically significant differential effect that is documented yet not widely recognized and, thus, not well understood.”
With GLP-1RAs, “we already know from early data that women tend to experience more off-target effects than men, such as gastrointestinal side effects that are often severe enough to preclude therapeutic use,” Cheng says. “There [are] also data suggesting that women who can tolerate GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy may lose more weight, at least in the short term,” which suggests that women might be more sensitive than men to GLP-1RAs. Nonetheless, Cheng notes that sex differences in, for example, cardiac benefits have not been seen. “So, there is more work to be done to understand the potential differences as well as similarities,” Cheng says.
posted by Colin Farrelly at 1:30 PM
I am the Sir Edward Peacock Professor of Political Theory in the Department of Political Studies, Queen's University (Cross-appointed with Philosophy) in Canada.
