I would like to make it clear that I played no part in instigating a Facebook uprising over my research (Nature 472, 410–411; 2011).
I am not an activist but a scientist who has published 27 peer-reviewed studies of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) and its relationship to multiple sclerosis in 18 interdisciplinary journals.
This research was funded by the Italian government and banking foundations, and grants were peer-reviewed by scientific committees under the usual rules.
I do not believe that Facebook can influence the diversion of funds to change research priorities or the judgement of the scientific community.
CCSVI is a pathological condition first described in the literature two years ago. A Google Scholar search reveals that CCSVI has been cited more than 2,000 times in published scientific papers. Evidently, CCSVI is a hot topic—it is interesting precisely because it is controversial.
Paolo Zamboni University of Ferrara, Italy.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3452e.html
Nature magazine had an article questioning the impact of social media on scientific research priorities.
I like this response. Not an activist but a scientist. Played no part in our Facebook uprising (and, prior to that, TIMS uprising ).
2000 citations on CCSVI in published scientific papers! That would seem like a lot except that I think it is a drop in the bucket to what the years ahead will bring.