How Academia and Academic Publishing are Hindering Scientific Innovation

The following is a user-submitted post by Marcus Haber

There is a very interesting document written byElizabeth Dzeng on the website Kings Review, an online magazine published at King’s College, Cambridge

Its an interview by Dzeng, a PhD candidate in the field of medicine, with Sydney Brenner, a professor of Genetic medicine at the University of Cambridge and Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine in 2002.

Dr. Brenner speaks about how it was possible for his team to unlock the genetic code and a critical commentary on why our current scientific research environment makes this kind of breakthrough unlikely today.

Some quotes:

What people don't realize is that at the beginning, it was just a handful of people who saw the light, if I can put it that way. So it was like belonging to an evangelical sect, because there were so few of us, and all the others sort of thought that there was something wrong with us.
I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system.  . . ."

Reminded me of LENR somehow…

  • Mauricio Tuffani

    Creationists manipulated opportunistically Brenner’s criticisms last Tuesday in:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nobel_laureate_082791.html.
    I’ve commented it today in my blog:
    http://ucablog.com/2014/03/07/criacionistas-e-brenner/

  • Mauricio Tuffani

    Creationists manipulated opportunistically Brenner’s criticisms last Tuesday in:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nobel_laureate_082791.html.
    I’ve commented it today in my blog:
    http://ucablog.com/2014/03/07/criacionistas-e-brenner/

    • bachcole

      I am both a creationist and an evolutionist, at the same time. As far as being a Biblical Creationist, please don’t be silly. But evolutionists who don’t see a divine design are to be pitied. But divine design does NOT play any role in scientific inquire or the practice of the scientific method.

    • georgehants

      Of course any semi-intelligent scientist who did not include the possibility of intelligent creation into his thinking would be a very poor scientist.
      ——-
      Darwin Was Wrong: Why We Need to Update Our Model of Evolution
      http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ellen-grace-jones/darwin-was-wrong_b_1475385.html

      • bachcole

        It is all about consciousness trying to know itself. Every single gazelle running from a cheetah is trying to maintain its consciousness. And every single cheetah trying to catch a gazelle is also trying to maintain its consciousness. We are all in a grand parade from Infinite Unconsciousness to Infinite Consciousness. And during that parade, I have to go eat and do more dishes. (:->)

  • Gerard McEk

    I agree, the academic system is wrong and extremely conservative, it blocks innovation and new thinking, it has lost bare roots of existence: Being critical about its (accepted) fundamentals and being curious and having the obligation to explain phenomena which cannot be explained by the existing theories. It is now all about status and money. The more you support the accepted theory, the better you will be paid. When will this corrupt system fall apart?
    On the other hand: I have no idea how to change this. Peer reviewing seemed to me a good way to ensure the quality.

  • Gerard McEk

    I agree, the academic system is wrong and extremely conservative, it blocks innovation and new thinking, it has lost bare roots of existence: Being critical about its (accepted) fundamentals and being curious and having the obligation to explain phenomena which cannot be explained by the existing theories. It is now all about status and money. The more you support the accepted theory, the better you will be paid. When will this corrupt system fall apart?
    On the other hand: I have no idea how to change this. Peer reviewing seemed to me a good way to ensure the quality.

    • bachcole

      When it comes to paradigm-shifting subjects, peer reviewing is the LEAST reliable guarantee of truth. By definition, paradigm-shifting subjects are NOT going to be accepted by many if any other people. And when someone is reading a paper in their academic ivory tower, they can’t see for themselves that something is true.

      It reminds me of our judges and courts versus Islamic judges and courts of the 12th century who would walk through the market places. They would test right there, getting their hands dirty, the weights and measures of the merchants. If there was any dishonesty, that merchant was sentenced on the stop. But our judges fear getting their hands dirty or inconveniencing themselves by getting off of their thrones. And our judges always have expert witness between them and the subject at hand. If the subject is an alleged crazy person, the judge needs a psychiatrist to tell them if the person is crazy or not. The judge doesn’t bother asking the person questions to see if they are crazy or not. We need experts for everything because we can’t think for ourselves.

      The same thing with the peer-review process.

  • Obvious

    You surely must understand, Bohr, that the whole idea of quantum jumps necessarily leads to nonsense… If we are going to have to put up with these damn quantum jumps, I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory.
    -Schrödinger

    The more I think about the physical part of the Schrödinger theory, the more detestable I find it. What Schrödinger writes about visualization makes scarcely any sense, in other words I think it is s**t. The greatest result of his theory is the calculation of matrix elements.
    – Heisenberg to Pauli, 1926.

  • Obvious

    You surely must understand, Bohr, that the whole idea of quantum jumps necessarily leads to nonsense… If we are going to have to put up with these damn quantum jumps, I am sorry that I ever had anything to do with quantum theory.
    -Schrödinger

    The more I think about the physical part of the Schrödinger theory, the more detestable I find it. What Schrödinger writes about visualization makes scarcely any sense, in other words I think it is s**t. The greatest result of his theory is the calculation of matrix elements.
    – Heisenberg to Pauli, 1926.