Medical hypotheses
-
We argue that the most ambitious science is intrinsically riskier science, more likely to fail. It is almost always a safer career strategy for the best scientists to seek to extend knowledge more modestly and to build incrementally on existing ideas and methods. Therefore, higher rewards for success are a necessary incentive to encourage top scientists to work on the most important scientific problems, ones where the solution has potentially revolutionary implications. We suggest that mega-cash prizes (measured in tens of millions of dollars) are a suitable reward for those individuals (or institutions) whose work has triggered radically new directions in science.
-
Partly spurred by the rapid emergence of discovery tools, empirical science founded on experimental validation now dominates academic funding, publishing, and recognition while forums for theoretical science have been marginalized. Although this hegemony of empiricism instills useful discipline to the scientific process, it also limits the pace of science to sensor innovation and renders the ontogeny of scientific knowledge path-dependent, concealing potential discontinuities in intellectual trajectories. Theoretical science, founded on intuition, inspiration, and abstraction, can complement empirical science by creating disruptive paradigms that facilitate detection of spurious results and frame new hypotheses. ⋯ Paradoxical medicine and dynamic range management may represent initial strategies to reprogram the neuroendocrine stress axes to modulate lifespan at the organism level, and many other strategies are anticipated. The key to theoretical science is original insight, but the prevailing pressure to conform to medicine's educational and practice standards dis-incentivizes independent thinking. A scientific future is envisioned when the commoditization of experimental science will enable its outsourcing, liberating health scientists from the tyranny of empiricism to engage in a more balanced process of discovery infused with theoretical considerations.
-
I believe that people will not feel comfortable and positive about the contemporary world until we can endorse and believe an evolutionary cosmology which is appropriate to modern conditions. A cosmology is a mythical account of the universe as it presents itself to the human mind; it needs to be poetic, symbolic, inspiring of a sense of awe and mystery. Furthermore, a complete cosmology should include the three levels of macro-, meso- and micro-cosm, in order to understand the nature of the universe, human society, and the individual's relation to them. ⋯ The same dynamic, neophiliac and open-ended process of 'creative destruction' can be seen at work in science, economics, and modern spirituality. But a modern cosmology will only be experienced as both deep and spontaneous when it takes the form of a mythic account that is first encountered and assimilated during childhood. Since myths arise as a consequence of human creativity; there is a vital future mythogenic role for artists in the realm of ideas, images and stories: people such as mystics, poets and philosophers--including, I hope and expect, creatively inspired scientists.
-
Editorial Historical Article
Measuring revolutionary biomedical science 1992-2006 using Nobel prizes, Lasker (clinical medicine) awards and Gairdner awards (NLG metric).
The Nobel prize for medicine or physiology, the Lasker award for clinical medicine, and the Gairdner international award are given to individuals for their role in developing theories, technologies and discoveries which have changed the direction of biomedical science. These distinctions have been used to develop an NLG metric to measure research performance and trends in 'revolutionary' biomedical science with the aim of identifying the premier revolutionary science research institutions and nations from 1992-2006. I have previously argued that the number of Nobel laureates in the biomedical field should be expanded to about nine per year and the NLG metric attempts to predict the possible results of such an expansion. ⋯ The University of Oxford, UK, was the only institution outside of the USA which featured as a significant centre of revolutionary biomedical science. Long-term success at the highest level of revolutionary biomedical science (and probably other sciences) probably requires a sufficiently large number of individually-successful large institutions in open competition with one another--as in the USA. If this model cannot be replicated within smaller nations, then it implies that such arrangements need to be encouraged and facilitated in multi-national units.
-
The Thomson Scientific Impact Factor (IF) for Medical Hypotheses has risen to 1.299 for 2006. This means that the IF has more than doubled since 2004, when it stood at 0.607. Using Elsevier's Scopus database; in 2004 there were 437 citations to Medical Hypotheses papers published in the previous two years--by 2006 this had trebled to 1216 citations. ⋯ Since Medical Hypotheses is performing adequately by such criteria, this provides a powerful answer to those who fetishize peer review and regard any other system of evaluation as suspect. Journal review procedures are merely a means to the end, and the end is a journal that serves a useful function in the dynamic process of science. Medical Hypotheses can now claim to perform such a role.