Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Of Mice and Men: Billion$ in Medical Research Can't Be Wrong. Oh, Wait.

Laurie Anderson - Big Science
Laurie Anderson - Big Science (Photo credit: kevin dooley)
Papers rejected because, "they had to be wrong".

When your funding depends on it, the fact your underlying assumptions may be wrong becomes a rather unwanted, inconvenient truth. An interesting critique of taxpayer-funded, Darwinian-based Big Science.

You think mice-men is bad? It's a minor skirmish.

Imagine the train-wreck when the evidence comes in that the neo-darwinian model is hopelessly insufficient and wrong-headed to explain... you. It's pouring in now, but as with climate-change, everything is interpreted as evidence of the model.

Enhanced by Zemanta


Anon1152 said...

I'm looking at the blog post you link to. It links to the New York Times.

Surely that's a sign of hope.

Far more people (far more "liberal" people) read the New York Times than read academic journals.

Anon1152 said...

Oh, and the work was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (as noted by the blog post you link to and the NY Times Article that the blog post links to.

"... nothing intellectually compelling or challenging.. bald assertions coupled to superstition... woefully pathetic"