Collegiality and careerism trump critical questions and bold new ideas: A student's perspective and solution: The structure of scientific funding limits bold new ideas

BioEssays

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 448-450

  Nicholson, Joshua M ^a  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Careerism; Conflict of interest; Funding; Innovation; Peer review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AWARDS AND PRIZES; CAREER; CONSENSUS; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; MASS COMMUNICATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH STUDENT; SCIENTIST;

RESEARCH; RESEARCH SUPPORT AS TOPIC; SCIENCE; STUDENTS;

EID: 84861234768     PISSN: 02659247     EISSN: 15211878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bies.201200001     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Muller RA. 1980. Innovation and scientific funding. Science 209: 880- 3.
2. Travis GDL, Collins HM. 1991. New light on old boys: cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer review system. Sci Technol Hum Val 16: 322- 41.
3. Horrobin DF. 2001. Something rotten at the core of science? Trends Pharmacol Sci 22: 51- 2.
4. Horrobin DF. 1996. Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research? Lancet 348: 1293- 5.
5. Watson JD. 1968. The Double Helix; a Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum. xvi, p. 226.
6. Jacob F. 1998. Of Flies, Mice, and Men. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 158.
7. Dawidoff N. 2009. The Civil Heretic. New York Times.
8. Montagnier L. 2010. Newsmaker interview: Luc Montagnier. French Nobelist escapes 'intellectual terror' to pursue radical ideas in China. Interview by Martin Enserink. Science 330: 1732.
9. Barber B. 1961. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science 134: 596- 602.
10. Smith R. 2010. Classical peer review: an empty gun. Breast Cancer Res 12: S13.
11. Harman OS, Dietrich MR. 2008. Rebels, Mavericks, and Heretics in Biology. New Haven: Yale University Press. viii, p. 400.
12. Ioannidis JP. 2011. More time for research: fund people not projects. Nature 477: 529- 31.
13. Interlandi J. 2009. Can an HIV-denying scientist cure cancer? Newsweek.
14. Worthy K, Strohman RC, Billings PR. 2002. Conflicts around a study of Mexican crops. Nature 417: 897.
15. Janssen R, Kruit A, Grutters JC, van den Bosch JMM, 2006. Interleukin-18-607 promoter polymorphism in sarcoidosis: ignoring "negative" results. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 173: 814.
16. Lang S. 1998. Challenges. New York: Springer.
17. Robinson KA, Goodman SN. 2011. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 154: 50- 5.
18. Detours V. 2011. Opinion: Confounded Cancer Markers. The Scientist.
19. Corbyn Z. 2012. Paper refuting HIV-AIDS link secures publication. Nature News, DOI: 10.1038/nature.2012.9737.
20. Reader's Poll. 2011. The well-behaved scientist. Science 334: 1203.
21. Schmidt J. 2000. Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System That Shapes Their Lives. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. viii, p. 294.
22. Dietmar B. 1998. The role of funding agencies in the cognitive development of science. Res Policy 27: 807- 21.
23. Mandavilli A. 2006. The amyloid code. Nat Med 12: 747- 51.
24. Harris H. 2005. A long view of fashions in cancer research. BioEssays 27: 833- 8.
25. Klein J. 1985. Hegemony of mediocrity in contemporary sciences, particularly in immunology. Lymphology 18: 122- 31.
26. Fleck L. 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. xxviii, p. 203.
27. Meho LI. 2007. The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World. p. 32-6.
28. Hamilton DP. 1991. Research papers: who's uncited now? Science 251: 25.
29. Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G. 2011. Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND J Econ 42: 527- 54.
30. Couzin ID, Ioannou CC, Demirel G, Gross T, et al. 2011. Uninformed individuals promote democratic consensus in animal groups. Science 334: 1578- 80.
31. Giles J. 2012. Like it? Pay for it. Nature 481: 252- 53.
32. Horrobin DF. 1982. In praise of non-experts. New Sci 94: 842- 4.