- #1
bobaustin
- 13
- 1
I caught this in the NY Times:
The article focuses on cancer research, but the conclusions can be applied to all medical research.
As the article correctly pointed out, medical research is done in very small and "safe" steps. Big visions and bold models, irrespective of how well they might explain reality and how far and how fast they could bring us, are routinely ridiculed and shot down.
To illustrate, let me give a very simple example. Let's say that physicists and medical researchers are going to research a flight of stairs. The medical researchers start first. They apply for a grant and get funded to measure the first step. They measure the first step, then apply for a grant to measure the second. And so on until they reach the last step. In the end they have a conference during which they discuss their findings and try to guess the total length of the stairs. They come up with a number, but that is just an assumption, so they apply for another grant to measure the whole thing. In the end they get to the truth after years of research and much time and money wasted. The physicists do things a little differently. They eyeball the stairs and estimate the height of one stair and then count the stairs. They multiply the number of stairs by the estimated height of one and get to the approximate height. Now it is time to check if this is correct, so they measure the height of the stairs. If the model and theory didn't match the result, they come up with another explanation for the height they measured, and then they come up with another way to test the theory. They get the result much faster and many times by deduction.
What shocked me again and again while sitting in audiences on medical conferences is the degree of destructive skepticism that dominates all discussions. Many people in medical research build whole careers on just commenting other people's work in the following manner: "interesting, but there is insufficient evidence to support this".
If physicists were medical researchers, they would still argue if in fact the Earth rotates around the sun, and some of them would demand that this be verified by someone leaving the solar system to observe for a year if in fact our model of the solar system is the correct one.
Fortunately, physicists are not medical researchers, so we now drive cars and fly planes, use iPods and the internet. In medicine we are still at the level of the steam engine, which is admittedly much better than walking or a horse-drawn carriage, but still far from where we could be.
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers
The comment was in response to a NYT article on cancer research and how after $105 billion in taxpayer money, we have little to show for it because the grant system is corrupt and doesn't encourage new ideas (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html)
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html?sort=oldest&offset=4
The article focuses on cancer research, but the conclusions can be applied to all medical research.
As the article correctly pointed out, medical research is done in very small and "safe" steps. Big visions and bold models, irrespective of how well they might explain reality and how far and how fast they could bring us, are routinely ridiculed and shot down.
To illustrate, let me give a very simple example. Let's say that physicists and medical researchers are going to research a flight of stairs. The medical researchers start first. They apply for a grant and get funded to measure the first step. They measure the first step, then apply for a grant to measure the second. And so on until they reach the last step. In the end they have a conference during which they discuss their findings and try to guess the total length of the stairs. They come up with a number, but that is just an assumption, so they apply for another grant to measure the whole thing. In the end they get to the truth after years of research and much time and money wasted. The physicists do things a little differently. They eyeball the stairs and estimate the height of one stair and then count the stairs. They multiply the number of stairs by the estimated height of one and get to the approximate height. Now it is time to check if this is correct, so they measure the height of the stairs. If the model and theory didn't match the result, they come up with another explanation for the height they measured, and then they come up with another way to test the theory. They get the result much faster and many times by deduction.
What shocked me again and again while sitting in audiences on medical conferences is the degree of destructive skepticism that dominates all discussions. Many people in medical research build whole careers on just commenting other people's work in the following manner: "interesting, but there is insufficient evidence to support this".
If physicists were medical researchers, they would still argue if in fact the Earth rotates around the sun, and some of them would demand that this be verified by someone leaving the solar system to observe for a year if in fact our model of the solar system is the correct one.
Fortunately, physicists are not medical researchers, so we now drive cars and fly planes, use iPods and the internet. In medicine we are still at the level of the steam engine, which is admittedly much better than walking or a horse-drawn carriage, but still far from where we could be.
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers
The comment was in response to a NYT article on cancer research and how after $105 billion in taxpayer money, we have little to show for it because the grant system is corrupt and doesn't encourage new ideas (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html)
Last edited by a moderator: