3 ms·
You should read "The Next Fifty Years" [1], specifically the essay named "Mastering Disease" by Paul W. Ewald. In a nutshell he argues that the current batch o
by selcuka 4y ago
You should read "The Next Fifty Years" [1], specifically the essay named "Mastering Disease" by Paul W. Ewald.
In a nutshell he argues that the current batch of scientists should either die or retire before the new generation can start investigating alternative theories:
> A sufficient proportion of the old guard will have to retire or expire, and a sufficient number of young people entering the arena without these vested interests must mature into positions of influence, to tip the balance of expert opinion.
It's been 20+ years since that essay was written, so it looks like it is slowly becoming a reality.
[1] https://ia601004.us.archive.org/26/items/nextfiftyyears/%5BJohn_Brockman%5D_The_Next_Fifty_Years%28z-lib.org%29.pdf https://ia601004.us.archive.org/26/items/nextfiftyyears/%5BJ...
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago> positions of influence There's the problem. People don't need to die off; the hierarchy of influence (especially as it pertains to funding, and secondarily as it pertains to publication) has to level out and be evidence-based. > My guess is that this point will have been reached by 2015 for atherosclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease. For AD the point was reached because of evidence of past research misconduct, and inability to replicate. Not because of new evidence per se. Or at least that's what I gather.