Rehearse then Research – By Brett Drummond

An MStranslate Opinion Piece

When I was younger, I was cast in the role of Robin Hood in a school musical.  I robbed from the rich to give to the poor.  My delusions of becoming acting royalty resulted in three (what I believed were) spectacular performances that captivated the audience…but this didn’t happen overnight.  These performances were preceded by months of rehearsals.  I don’t tell this story to make you aware of my acting prowess, or for the imagery of me in tights (all photos have since been burned), but it made me think, why doesn’t research follow the same model?

One of the biggest frustrations I experience when reading MS research articles happens when I get to the concluding statements and realise that a flaw in the experimental design means that very few definitive answers are generated.  I don’t mean studies that haven’t succeeded or have achieved negative results, this is just a natural part of research…I’m talking about projects that were doomed from the start.  For example, one of the ones that we highlighted a while ago on MStranslate had a conclusion along the lines of:

Children with MS that exercise more experience better outcomes in terms of disease progression.  However, we can’t rule out the fact that it was actually just the fact that children with less severe disease progression are physically capable of doing more exercise.

This in itself is a hiccup, but the problem lies in the fact that studies like this aren’t isolated incidents.  With research funding so difficult to obtain and such a small percentage of projects getting supported, I think there is an increased pressure and expectation for them (studies) to result in excellent outcomes.  So how does Robin Hood fit into this scenario? 

Rehearse your research.

Imagine a situation where before any funding was received, and any data was gathered, researchers sat around and simulated the whole project.  

“What if these answers were provided to our survey questions?”

“What if these outcomes are observed? What would our conclusions be?”

If this was done thoroughly, maybe flaws would be identified and eradicated early in the process.  You say your lines aloud over and over again before the actual performance, why couldn’t the same be applied to experiments?  The reality is that research is never going to be perfect – it is unpredictable and often some of the best findings are those that are the most unexpected.  I do think that, especially in the current climate, we need to focus some attention on maximising research efficiency and minimising research waste.  

Is project simulation realistic or is it too difficult to do this sort of contingency management for scientific research? Could it have a negative impact by stopping chance findings from happening? Or could it help ensure that all funding is allocated to projects that have the greatest chance of providing real and beneficial outcomes to people with MS?  Honestly, I don’t know the answer, it was just a thought and one person’s opinion.  What do you think?

This is Brett, signing off from another MStranslate opinion piece.  Exit.  Stage left.