Notifications
Sign Up Sign In
Site Proposals

Medical science site

+8
−2

With Coronavirus and Covid-19 being present for a longer time than most people anticipated in the beginning, I noticed that a lot of people suddenly are more concerned with their general health and well-being.

Scope could be (theoretically) quite big: human anatomy (What tendons are affected when you have a tennis elbow?), common diseases and their transmission (How is HIV transmitted?), basic epidemiological concepts (What is the term prevalence used for when talking about diseases?) or risk factors (Why is it bad to drink alcohol while being pregnant? How does obesity affect my heart?).

Questions should be purely educational while answers are scientifically backed (no pseudoscience, no alternative medicine). It should be no site where diagnoses or professional advice are offered. The target audience could be anyone (board certified physicians, laypersons, students of medical and other health sciences, medical researchers) with an emphasis to back up answers with real evidence.

Are there other users interested in such a medical sciences Codidact site? Or maybe with a different scope or target audience?

Why should this post be closed?

0 comments

3 answers

+3
−0

Sort of a niche interest: Would subjects like biochemistry be considered on-topic on such a site? Perhaps orgo in general?

2 comments

My opinion would be that these subjects are on-topic as long as they are relevant to human biology/health. So questions on reactions/enzymes would be on-topic if they take place in humans user53100 5 days ago

I partly agree with the previous comment of @user53100. I think that basic questions related to human biology / biochemistry and pharmacology should be on-topic to a certain degree. As soon as it becomes purely about the chemical formulas and effects behind it, I think that a chemical or pharmacology site would be a better fit. Zerotime 5 days ago

+3
−0

I am concerned about the ability of such a site to maintain its quality and accuracy.

This is the Internet. Even if we require sources for all information contained in posts, there are sources for every piece of misinformation out there. It's hard to tell at a glance at times what is a legitimate information source and what is spouting nonsense - which leads to things like anti-vaccine misinformation gaining popularity.

Unless you have somebody with medical training overseeing every post on the site, I don't see how it would be possible for a public medical Q&A site to keep itself free of misinformation.

Aside from misinformation, there will be the endless "What's wrong with me?" questions asking for a diagnosis, as well as being a ripe target for medical and drug spam.

I don't see this being a viable proposal at the moment, especially with such a small, non-medically-trained userbase.

4 comments

'there will be the endless "What's wrong with me?" questions' → 'It should be no site where diagnoses or professional advice are offered.', thus making such questions off-topic. user53100 5 days ago

@user53100 - something being off-topic doesn't mean people won't ask it. The users of the site would have to constantly be closing such questions again and again. Mithical 5 days ago

I agree that we need some medical professionals. Zerotime's comment suggests expertise, let's see if there are others who join. user53100 5 days ago

I don't think that it's a problem that people will still be asking about diagnoses, yes it may be annoying to close them, but that's all - no harm done. The validity of sources indeed is a problem, strictly speaking one medical professional wouldn't be enough either as this person can also be wrong. Maybe we need a feature with which (broader) sources can be rated as reliable from different users, this increases quality and helps to avoid biases. Zerotime 5 days ago

+1
−0

Right now we don't have a good way of identifying people who would help build a new community, so let's do this: if you are interested in helping to build this site, please leave a comment describing your level of interest (casual visitor, enthusiast, expert in this topic within the site's scope, something else?). I'll edit them into the post later.

  • I'm rather enthusiastic to participate and have a fair share of knowledge in some sub topics like cardiology, oncology, general risk factors and psychiatry. — Zerotime

  • I would participate casually, asking the occasional question but almost certainly unable to contribute useful answers. — Monica Cellio

  • I would participate casually, asking the occasional question but almost certainly unable to contribute useful answers. — msh210

  • I would participate casually too. — user53100

  • At this stage I would participate casually – I just don't know that much on the topic yet. My ability to write useful answers would increase as I work through college. — DonielF

5 comments

I would participate casually, asking the occasional question but almost certainly unable to contribute useful answers. Monica Cellio 12 days ago

I'm rather enthusiastic to participate and have a fair share of knowledge in some sub topics like cardiology, oncology, general risk factors and psychiatry. Zerotime 12 days ago

I would participate casually, asking the occasional question but almost certainly unable to contribute useful answers. msh210 8 days ago

I would participate casually too. user53100 8 days ago

At this stage I would participate casually – I just don't know that much on the topic yet. My ability to write useful answers would increase as I work through college. DonielF 8 days ago

Sign up to answer this question »