Why Is Biomedical Research So Conservative?

How do scientists decide what research to do? One would like to think that they take a suitably scientific approach to this question by thinking about important problems that need to be solved, and asking which of these problems could be solved given the time and money available. But are research projects actually proposed and funded in this way, or are there other forces at work?

Particle physicists and astronomers realized decades ago that they needed to take a coordinated approach to planning so that they had accelerators and telescopes to work on. This “big science” approach involved agreeing on the long-term scientific goals in a given field and then getting the relevant funding agencies in different countries on board. This approach has been remarkably successful, as demonstrated by the recent detections of the Higgs boson and gravitational waves. But it does not always go to plan—if it did, a chemical company called Magnablend would not own the site of the abandoned Superconducting Super Collider in Texas.

But what happens in other areas of research, that tend to be organized from the bottom up rather than from the top down?

In late 2014 four prominent life scientists in the United States published a provocative essay titled “Rescuing U.S. biomedical research from its systemic flaws.”1 The essay described how two long-term trends—an ongoing increase in the number of biomedical researchers in the U.S. and an ongoing decrease in real-terms funding for the National Institutes

You're reading a preview, sign up to read more.

More from Nautilus

Nautilus9 min read
Let’s Play War: Could war games replace the real thing?
In the spring of 1964, as fighting escalated in Vietnam, several dozen Americans gathered to play a game. They were some of the most powerful men in Washington: the director of Central Intelligence, the Army chief of staff, the national security advi
Nautilus10 min readScience
The Spirit Of The Inquisition Lives In Science: What a 16th-century scientist can tell us about the fate of a physicist like David Bohm.
I’ve been talking to Jerome Cardano for years now. What’s more, he talks back to me—in a voice that often drips with gentle mockery. He clearly thinks my sanity is as precarious as his always was. Jerome was Europe’s pre-eminent inventor, physician,
Nautilus5 min read
Game Of Thrones And The Evolutionary Significance Of Storytelling
I told myself it was absurd to be discontented with the way Game of Thrones ended. Why should I feel anything for the fate of a fictional world? Even so, I watched with interest, on YouTube, videos of how several of the episodes—particularly “The Lon