|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Abstract. Out of 32 embryos flown (16 @ E2 + 16 @ E9) for 5 days, 16 survived. All sixteen E2 were dead at landing. Eight were opened and eight were incubated at 1.0G. Autopsy showed that 4 E2 survived over 24 hours in space. Eight E14 hatched without anatomical malformations, and 8 E14 were fixed. The height of the macular epithelia was (mean 31 µm) in control and 26 µm in flight chicks. The cross-sectional area of macular nuclei of control was 17 µm2 for hair cells and 14 µm2 in supporting cells. In flight, cross-sectional area was 17 µm2 in hair cells and 15 µm2 in supporting cells (n=250). The shape factor of cartilage cells (1.0 = perfect circle) between control (mean = 0.70) and flight (mean = 0.72), and the area of cartilaginous cells between controls (mean = 9 µm2) and flight (mean = 9 µm2) did not differ (n=300). The nuclei of support cells were closer to the basement membrane in flight than in control chicks. The immunoreactivity of otoconia with anti keratan, fibronectin or chrondroitin sulfate was not different between flight and control ears. There were more afferent fibers inside the macular epithelia of flight (p=0.05) than control. Three of 8 flight animals had elevated vestibular thresholds (VT), with normal mean response amplitudes and latencies. Modified afferent innervation patterns requiring weeks to compensate are sufficient to elevate VT, and should be investigated further. Other reversible (sublethal) microgravity effects on sensory epithelia (vacuoles, swelling, etc) require quantification.
1. Subjectivity: Proponents for subjectivity argue that flexibility is needed to reflect applications differences. Unfortunately, reviewers sway without consistency, and NOT every application is exonerated equally. Like the editorial office of respectable journals do, before sending manuscripts for review, the granting agencies (experts in those fields?) could remove up front before reviewers have access to privileged ideas, incomplete applications or those that do not fit RFAs. The eligible applications should be judged on their content, and new reviewers should not be left to set their own standards on how to review them. The system needs written rules, regulations, guidelines, etc. that would require reviewers applying identical criteria to all applications. The power bestowed upon the reviewers to disqualify new ideas based on ³unpublished² observations has to be removed from the process, unless applicants ignored peer-reviewed-published information. An example of weakness in summary statement: [Therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project will lead to new technologies or applications of knowledge that contribute... to the mission or health and welfare of the American people.] The RFA did not state this condition, and the aims and hypothesis were ignored, but the panel was clear on what I should do. If agencies want investigators to research reviewers ideas, put these ideas on the RFA. Otherwise allows others into uncharted territory regardless of how rough and/or virgin it may be!
2.Anonymity: The system encourages reviewers irresponsibility rather than accountability. Summary statements would become constructive if reviewers have to defend their opinions. I am not alone in saying that many would rather receive an administrative withdrawal up front, than a very low score while exposing one¹s research plan and 3-6 months agonizing waiting. The journal of Scanning Microscopy discloses reviewers, and publishes both sides argument at the end of each paper. Reviews are more constructive than disruptive. Ideas that reviews considered worthless are often later presented at meetings. Nonetheless, anonymity prevents applicants from pressing charges, that is, at least morally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|