- Michael Moore
- University Place, WA
- United States
Disruptive Physician, Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences
When confronted with new ideas like the ones presented by Mina Bissell, how do we change our views in today's scientific establishment?
Today's scientific research is different than research of 100. 50, or even 20 years ago. The advances are generally more incremental, less understandable to non-scientists, and require an expensive research infrastructure. In addition, because of limited resources we often do not have the time or money to reconfirm results, resulting in less validated information being incorporated into our knowledge base. To me this is a similar situation that resulted in the scientific profession, the science journal, and the concept of peer review. Now, because of the explosion of science knowledge, and the idea that scientific knowledge can be proprietary, these structures/ideas are failing us...and revolutionary ideas like Mina Bissell's can pass us by because they are unrecognized.
Are we entering a new era where we need new models of how we validate knowledge? Do we just retain our trend to open information and hope the knowledge rises to the surface, or is there still a role for curation and peer review?
What are the kinds of skills that the "New Scientist" will need? Maybe just as important, what are the skills they will not need?