[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 9

From: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 9
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:57:23 -0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0

Em 20/02/2017 14:00, address@hidden escreveu:
Send libreplanet-discuss mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of libreplanet-discuss digest..."

Today's Topics:

    1. Re: Why medical technology often doesn't make it from drawing
       board to hospital (Mary-Anne Wolf)
    2. Freedom friendly online survey software? (Pen-Yuan Hsing)


Message: 1
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:48:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Mary-Anne Wolf <address@hidden>
To: Thomas Harding <address@hidden>,
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Why medical technology often
        doesn't make it from drawing board to hospital
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I think it is a question of rewards and prestige and power.  The hospital's 
customer is not the patient but the insurance company, who pays the money.  
While hospitals may be rewarded for better results, the hospital decision 
makers are more often stronger in their expertise in medicine than in their 
expertise about technology.  There are exceptions; Children's Hospital in 
Boston is a well known example, whose leadership has expertise in both 
technology and medicine.  The highest prestige jobs in a hospital are typically 
positions held by people with M.D.s.   The pressure to contain costs is 
formidable, and while better software can indeed improve results in some cases, 
the people who make decisions in a hospital will typically not have the right 
expertise to recognize when and how that happens.  While they understand that 
some things require technology, and may choose to invest in sufficient 
technology to make certain kinds of treatments possible, they may not have the 
nuanced appreciation of the difference between better and worse software, as 
most of us on this list would understand.  Similarly, researchers supported by 
grants are rewarded for showing that something new is possible, rather than for 
repeating the same discovery but making it more easy or smooth or reliable.  
That is the nature of how grant worthiness is judged.  While there are grants 
specifically aimed at bringing research results into routine clinical use, they 
don't force the researchers to look at software quality, and the people who 
judge which teams get these grants may or may not even understand where and how 
the maturity of the software fits into making research more clinically useful.  
It may not be their expertise either.

On February 18, 2017 at 7:59 AM Thomas Harding <address@hidden> wrote:

     Why hospital doesn't fund computing researchers / research centers to make 
their tools usable daily in an hospital, instead of waiting for 
private/commercial compaignies/corporations to integrate it, most likely in a 
complete new(again) very costly equipment and not as an upgrade or maintainance?

     Le 16 f?vrier 2017 12:33:42 GMT+01:00, David Hirst <address@hidden> a 
?crit :

         > >
         Why medical technology often doesn?t make it from drawing board to 

         This article, published under a cc licence, so freely available, 
criticises ?free? software and not providing incentives to make it robust 
enough and easy enough for clinical use. The conversation is not peer-reviewed, 
but is a voice for academics, who are used to peer scrutiny.

         I do not know the field, but I can see that there is huge scope for 
tools to help visualisation of scans that might make them easier to interpret.

         But I suspect it is a bit na?ve to blame ?incentives?, and it sounds a 
bit neolib to me. But somebody more expert in the area may have better grounds 
for comment.

         The article can have comments made about it, and I think you can be 
confident that the author will see them and respond.



         David Hirst

         Mobile:  +44 7831 405443

     Envoy? de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma bri?vet?.

     libreplanet-discuss mailing list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...


Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:46:08 +0000
From: Pen-Yuan Hsing <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Subject: [libreplanet-discuss] Freedom friendly online survey
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

Dear libreplanet,

I often see online surveys/evaluations done with Google Forms or
Surveymonkey, but these services are not freedom or privacy respecting.

Are there replacements for them that *are* freedom and privacy
respecting? Thank you!
Hi Pen-Yuan

If you install it in your own server, it's a good FOSS alternative.


Marcelo H.Fortino


Subject: Digest Footer

libreplanet-discuss mailing list


End of libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 84, Issue 9

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]