PLoS Goes Mainstream

One sure sign of acceptance in the mainstream media occurs when a
publication gets picked up by Google News (as illustrated in the screen capture image, above).



Yesterday, reading the Public Library of Science Medicine journal ( rel="tag" href="http://medicine.plosjournals.org/">PLoS
Medicine), I noticed an article linking infestation
with liver flukes
and the development of cancer of the bile ducts ( href="http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040201">Liver
Fluke Induces Cholangiocarcinoma).  

face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"> href="http://s00.middlebury.edu/BI430A/STUDENTS/A.%20Smith/index.htm">

Opisthorchis viverrini

I
read it because the type of cancer ( href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholangiocarcinoma" rel="tag">cholangiocarcinoma)
is very rare.
 I thought that perhaps the discovery of the association with
liver flukes could give us some kind of clue as the the molecular
mechanism (pathophysiology) that leads to the cancer.



What I learned about the pathophysiology was speculative, so I decide
to not blog about it.  But today, I see that Google News has,
in its cybernetic wisdom, decided that it is newsworthy.



PLoS, in case you don't know, publishes truly open-source journals.
That is, anyone if free to read them, and anyone is
free to copy/make use of the contents.  It is important that
both properties be present in order to consider the journal truly open
source.



At first, they were considered an upstart.  Mainstream journal
publishers assumed they would just go away after a while.  But
then, it turned out that they developed impressive href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor" rel="tag">impact
factors.  (Which is sort of like having a high
Technorati ranking.)  While one can href="http://www.plos.org/cms/node/28">debate the importance
of the IF, it is at least an indication of non-triviality.
 



What is important to authors of scientific papers is that the paper
makes an impact of a different sort.  Pre-tenure, the author
wants the paper to be deemed significant enough to sway the tenure
committee.  Post-tenure, the author wants the article to make
a positive influence on society.  (I know these are
overly-broad generalizations, but it makes a point here.)



So what good does it do for Liver Fluke Induces
Cholangiocarcinoma to be picked up by Google News?
 After all most people with Internet access are never going to
be infested with Opisthorchis viverrini.
 



Well, the answer is that it does a lot of good.
 For one, it raises awareness of a public health issue.
 That is always good.  People need to see that
organizations such as United States National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases, and the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation, (the
funding sources for the study) are doing some good.



Two, it could help get people interested in science, public health,
epidemiology, and medicine.  More interest is good.



Three, it could raise the level of scientific literacy in the
population.  Again, more is better.



Four, it could increase cultural and geographic literacy.
 More is better.



Five, it could increase awareness of the need for global health
initiatives.  More is better.



Six, it could make more scientists aware of the findings.
 Maybe one of them will get curious about the pathophysiology,
get a bright idea, develop a hypothesis, and test it.  Maybe
that will lead to a cure for cancer.  



By the way, PLoS Medicine is looking to href="http://www.plos.org/cms/node/242">hire another medical
editor.  If the six points I mentioned above sound
valid to you, and you have the right qualifications, check their href="http://www.plos.org/jobs.html#pme">job posting.