Government funding breeds conformity, says surgery professor

Share:

If you want government funding, there are certain ideas that you dare not question, stated Donald W. Miller, M.D., University of Washington professor of surgery, a member of AAPS.

Miller’s views are similar to those expressed in 2005 by another UW professor, Gerald Pollack, whose work on muscle contraction has challenged the reigning view in his field. Pollock said that science has become a “culture of believers,” The rule is “just keep it safe and get your funding.”

Pollack noted that breakthroughs in science were fairly common 50 years ago, citing Linus Pauling in molecular biology, Jonas Salk in vaccines, Richard Feynman in physics, and James Watson and Francis Crick in the study of DNA. “Where are the heroes of the past 30 years?”

He believes that Einstein’s challenge of orthodoxy would probably fail in today’s grant system. Granting committees demand that a scientist predict what he will be able to accomplish in year one, year two, etc. This amounts to “an implicit admission that no breakthroughs are to be anticipated.”

If science is likened to a skeleton, the grant system sets out to pay a multitude of scientists to add a tiny bit of flesh. But what if the skeleton itself is misdesigned? In the past, science was recognized to progress by overthrowing the “dominant paradigm.” Today, defenders of the dominant paradigm are probably sitting on the grants committee.

Today’s orthodoxy holds, according to Miller, that global warming is caused by humans, AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus, heart disease is caused by saturated fats, and cancer is caused by mutations. It also holds that radiation, cigarette smoke, and other toxins are dangerous in proportion to their strength, no matter how small the dose. If you want to test a contrary belief, you won’t get funded.

Miller predicts that at some point a major belief like one of these will come tumbling down. “And when it’s acknowledged, a lot of other science will be called into question” (Bruce Ramsey, Seattle Times 3/19/08).

Dr. Miller will speak at the AAPS annual meeting in Phoenix, Sep 11-13.

Additional information:

6 Comments

  1. Prof. Miller’s observation applies perfectly well on the believe of “Mental Illness”, an ever expanding pseudo medical industry, that lacks any scientific validity and ingenieers and controls the socio-political rules of voluntary human behavior.
    Worse, the “Mental Illness” paradigm is untouchable not only to the government but to official medicine and psychiatry.

  2. AIDS and psycho-pharmacology are two other areas in which the suppression of dissent has produced lack of progress. The entire HIV-infectious AIDS coterie, which in 1984 predicted an AIDS vaccine within two years, is still spending money and getting little accomplished – while Peter Duesberg’s insistence that AIDS is not infectious continues to be systematically ignored. And the triumph of psycho-pharmacology within psychiatry is directly responsible for the five-fold increase in in individuals receiving Social Security disability benefits for mental illness.

  3. Having developed a simple and effective treatment for Parkinson’s, presenting it to “movement Disorder” clinics has resulted in a deafening absence of response. They will not need many of the grants they currently pursue and have every reason to fear the reality of having to do something else. This funding scheme has undermined every decent clinical endeavor.

  4. If you can get your hands on a copy of the book “Dirty Medicine” by Martin Walker (download available from Slingshot Publications), you will see that for years, organized medicine/the drug industry has systematically done whatever it can to criminalize those who make medical progress, particularly in the world of prevention, since prevention of disease is not good for profits. Perfect modern example: the Women’s Health Initiative, according to Jacques Rossouw it’s head, was designed for the purpose of convincing women that estrogen does not prevent heart disease, (even thought we have truckloads of evidence that it does.) So if you do something on the cutting edge, watch your back.