TED Conversations

Michael Moore

Disruptive Medical Student, Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences

TEDCRED 500+
AssociateTED AttendeeTED Live memberTEDx Organizer

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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?

Related Talks:
Topics: applying science change citizen science peer review scientific method
+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Robert Winner 50+

    • +2
    Jul 20 2012: Michael, I am the wrong kind of engineer to speak to this subject. However, we have many things in common. The most important is that we both must present a hypothesis to some committee or board for approval and funding. To be honest these are not always professionals in the area of your work. CEOs and board members are high level politicians. By that I mean that they watch the bottom line to ensure that the share holders are taken care of. New or start up research is very expensive and manpower intensive. That being said it is financially more prudent to pay a research university to do the base work. That is why universities hire Nobel winners ... to draw corporate grants and government grants. Once the hypothesis is validated the real research begins. Again it is a cost trade off of doing it in your lab or at the university lab.

    Mina Bissell has the university advantage. I call it that because she has new eyes to read old studies, review current status, and see the project anew. That, to me, is a teriffic advantage. After a couple years of going down the same road I become locked in and have tunnel vision and tunnel thoughts. New blood allows for new thoughts and possibilities if the EGOs will open up to them.

    A truck was stuck in a tunnel and need about three inches to release the truck. All the pros discussed the proper means of doing this when a child said why not let some air out of the tires.

    I offer this because there is a stigma about young minds in the "adult", "veteran", "old hands", "proven", etc ... world. We need these new eyes and we need them on the leading edge.

    The skills change daily. I think that the science of today is probally ten years old. By the time accepted methods, equipment, computers are manufactured they are behind what is on the drawing board and that is ten years til delivery.

    I cannot answer your specifics but I think we share some common ground.

    All the best. Bob.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.