I could see a “five whys” style analysis replacing or augmenting some meta-analyses. The focus would be less on exhaustively documenting potential answers to a single question and more on trying to put together explanatory pieces of evidence along a chain of “whys”. I suspect just assembling all that info in a single place could advance the frontier of knowledge in some diseases.
Excellent essay, thank you. I wonder if it is fair to acknowledge that the asking Why? approach encountered a block at the question of why RFX6 is reduced in the diabetics' capillaries. I realize that a single paper cannot answer all the questions that arise using the Why? approach, so this is not a knock on the very fine paper and your summary...just want to be sure I did not misunderstand the point at which the story stops.
Trevor is such a great writer. Love this piece!
I could see a “five whys” style analysis replacing or augmenting some meta-analyses. The focus would be less on exhaustively documenting potential answers to a single question and more on trying to put together explanatory pieces of evidence along a chain of “whys”. I suspect just assembling all that info in a single place could advance the frontier of knowledge in some diseases.
Excellent essay, thank you. I wonder if it is fair to acknowledge that the asking Why? approach encountered a block at the question of why RFX6 is reduced in the diabetics' capillaries. I realize that a single paper cannot answer all the questions that arise using the Why? approach, so this is not a knock on the very fine paper and your summary...just want to be sure I did not misunderstand the point at which the story stops.