Endocrine Abstracts

While axiomatic, it is worth reflecting carefully when planning research. The first step requires careful review of the sequence of processes linking the current state of the art of the evidence, to the hypothesis, then to the question/s testing the hypothesis and on to the nature of evidence required to answer those questions., This is of course required well before any consideration of the “how” those questions can be answered. One of the confounders in this careful review process is, of course the issue of practicality: what expertise, facilities, funding, resources, does the lab have access to? Inevitably each lab will have its own range of “favourite” techniques and approaches, based on historical and local particulars as well as what methods are established and validated in the lab. The more towards the early career researcher end of the spectrum an individual is, then the more circumscribed they are likely to be by these factors and by their principal investigator and their funding. Given the need to establish biological plausibility as well as, in many cases, human relevance, selection of appropriate model/s for a specific research project may not be simple. Furthermore, the need for biological plausibility and confirmatory work will frequently impose a requirement for the use of different model systems and approaches. The talk will be aimed at considerations and thoughts around matching model/s to be used with the hypothesis answering requirements in general and acknowledge that the issue around practicalities cannot be ignored.