|
Publications are rewarded in science, not social impact Stelling1 #293416 Relying on Journal’s impact factor to assess scientific work’s importance. | |
+Citaten (2) - CitatenVoeg citaat toeList by: CiterankMapLink[1] Desperately Seeking Cures
Citerend uit: Sharon Begle, Mary Carmichael - Newsweek Publication info: 2010 May,14 Geciteerd door: David Price 8:50 PM 28 October 2013 GMT URL:
| Fragment- "Basic research is healthy in America," says John Adler, a Stanford University professor who invented the CyberKnife, a robotic device that treats cancer with precise, high doses of radiation. "But patients aren't benefiting. Our understanding of diseases is greater than ever. But academics think, 'We had three papers in Science or Nature, so that must have been [NIH] money well spent.'?"
More and more policymakers and patients are therefore asking, where are the cures? The answer is that potential cures, or at least treatments, are stuck in the chasm between a scientific discovery and the doctor's office: what's been called the valley of death.
The barriers to exploiting fundamental discoveries begin with science labs themselves. In academia and the NIH, the system of honors, grants, and tenure rewards basic discoveries (a gene for Parkinson's! a molecule that halts metastasis!), not the grunt work that turns such breakthroughs into drugs. "Colleagues tell me they're very successful getting NIH grants because their experiments are elegant and likely to yield fundamental discoveries, even if they have no prospect of producing something that helps human diseases," says cancer biologist Raymond Hohl of the University of Iowa. |
|
|