4 ms·

"This stifling of competing ideas, say a growing number of scholars, is a big reason why there is no treatment for Alzheimer’s." Question for those who know: i

by jnovek 4y ago

"This stifling of competing ideas, say a growing number of scholars, is a big reason why there is no treatment for Alzheimer’s." Question for those who know: is this a problem in general with the culture of academic science? I am not a scientist, but I feel like I've seen this story more than once in science-enthusiast media: an established but incorrect idea cannot be challenged because it is a risky career move and hard to get funding for. I understand that crackpots exist, but I wonder how much of this culture is really a barrier to keep out the unsubstantiated and how much of it is just protecting turf and sunk costs? I have tons of confidence in the scientific method, but decreasing confidence in the institutions that practice it.

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 4y ago
The idea of an oppressive scientific elite is a bit too neat and tidy. Certainly there are banal human politics at play, but it's hardly an explanation for all that ails. This idea is too attractive to the heterodox and outsiders cynical of scientific institutions. Alzheimer's research having a focus on amyloid plaques makes perfect sense in light of so much data implicating it as a mediator of the disease. It's hard to say, even in retrospect, whether this focus was warranted or not. Allocation of scarce resources is hard, and everything comes at the expense of something else. It's easy to pick out 'fringe' ideas that bore fruit and lament how hard it was for them to gain traction. But what about all those that didn't? Were we really balanced too strongly to dominant ideas, or is science simply difficult? You simply can't address this issue with the recent success of new or fringe ideas. You'd have to do something like systematically look at proposal acceptance rate vs. some subjective measure of heterodoxy vs. ultimate success. I just don't see compelling results from something like that.
ncmncm 4y ago
Yes, it is a problem in general. It is inherent in the system that issues grant money and permits publication according to the opinions of the "old guard" in each field. Recently, the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, finally firmly established in 2018, was fought tooth and nail for a decade, with numerous shamefully disingenuous papers published (e.g. insisting melt-glass grains were pollen). The de-facto curator of the Wikipedia page, a retired historian with no geology background, did and still to this day does his part to throw up doubt.
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
Yes, although this is a particularly severe case.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
protomyth 4y ago
Question for those who know: is this a problem in general with the culture of academic science? It's a trouble with most grant driven activities. If I control the money then people that don't advance my beliefs aren't getting funded. Those whose competing ideas that prove me wrong will be curbstomped. The true amazing grantees fund the competition too.
JieJie 4y ago
I'm not in the know, but what little I know of science history tells me that entrenchment is a regular occurrence in the sciences, going back to Copernicus and Co. I suppose capitalism has fueled it to one extent or another. Depending on your outlook, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. In our defense, at least we're not burning people at the stake for it anymore.
PaulKeeble 4y ago
Yep. Its happening right now with Long hauler research for Covid where 19/20 of the top papers explaining the condition were not NIH funded. The NIH is so far behind in terms of research compared to organisations that are publicly or privately funded that its almost laughable and its controlling 1.1 billion USD and getting nothing done at all. Its definitely not new, there was such a Cabal for ME/CFS research for nearly 60 years that considered the disease depression and to treat it with exercise and CBT, they successfully sucked up all the funding (still do) and have published numerous big studies including completely fabricated data and they still keep getting all the funding. MS was similarly led down the wrong path for 2 decades with a similar cabal and limited funding with most research rejected and it only got exposed when the US Army noted that only those that caught EBV (mono,glandular fever) went on to develop the condition. Remains to be seen if the research money is no redirected due to this research and the enormous media coverage. It is by and large the normal when it comes to disease funding, cabals with real promising research even drugs that showed promise in small trials or diagnostics that appear to work well getting rejected for funding for nonsense reasons. Its not a uniquely US/NIH issue either its definitely present in the UK's NHS as well.

by jnovek 4y ago

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 4y ago

The idea of an oppressive scientific elite is a bit too neat and tidy. Certainly there are banal human politics at play, but it's hardly an explanation for all that ails. This idea is too attractive to the heterodox and outsiders cynical of scientific institutions. Alzheimer's research having a focus on amyloid plaques makes perfect sense in light of so much data implicating it as a mediator of the disease. It's hard to say, even in retrospect, whether this focus was warranted or not. Allocation of scarce resources is hard, and everything comes at the expense of something else. It's easy to pick out 'fringe' ideas that bore fruit and lament how hard it was for them to gain traction. But what about all those that didn't? Were we really balanced too strongly to dominant ideas, or is science simply difficult? You simply can't address this issue with the recent success of new or fringe ideas. You'd have to do something like systematically look at proposal acceptance rate vs. some subjective measure of heterodoxy vs. ultimate success. I just don't see compelling results from something like that.

ncmncm 4y ago

Yes, it is a problem in general. It is inherent in the system that issues grant money and permits publication according to the opinions of the "old guard" in each field. Recently, the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis, finally firmly established in 2018, was fought tooth and nail for a decade, with numerous shamefully disingenuous papers published (e.g. insisting melt-glass grains were pollen). The de-facto curator of the Wikipedia page, a retired historian with no geology background, did and still to this day does his part to throw up doubt.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago

Yes, although this is a particularly severe case.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

protomyth 4y ago

Question for those who know: is this a problem in general with the culture of academic science? It's a trouble with most grant driven activities. If I control the money then people that don't advance my beliefs aren't getting funded. Those whose competing ideas that prove me wrong will be curbstomped. The true amazing grantees fund the competition too.

JieJie 4y ago

I'm not in the know, but what little I know of science history tells me that entrenchment is a regular occurrence in the sciences, going back to Copernicus and Co. I suppose capitalism has fueled it to one extent or another. Depending on your outlook, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. In our defense, at least we're not burning people at the stake for it anymore.

PaulKeeble 4y ago

Yep. Its happening right now with Long hauler research for Covid where 19/20 of the top papers explaining the condition were not NIH funded. The NIH is so far behind in terms of research compared to organisations that are publicly or privately funded that its almost laughable and its controlling 1.1 billion USD and getting nothing done at all. Its definitely not new, there was such a Cabal for ME/CFS research for nearly 60 years that considered the disease depression and to treat it with exercise and CBT, they successfully sucked up all the funding (still do) and have published numerous big studies including completely fabricated data and they still keep getting all the funding. MS was similarly led down the wrong path for 2 decades with a similar cabal and limited funding with most research rejected and it only got exposed when the US Army noted that only those that caught EBV (mono,glandular fever) went on to develop the condition. Remains to be seen if the research money is no redirected due to this research and the enormous media coverage. It is by and large the normal when it comes to disease funding, cabals with real promising research even drugs that showed promise in small trials or diagnostics that appear to work well getting rejected for funding for nonsense reasons. Its not a uniquely US/NIH issue either its definitely present in the UK's NHS as well.