"Giusti’s aggressive approach to myeloma research has been controversial among some academic scientists, who argue that it’s unrealistic—even counterproductive—for patients and their advocates to think that with enough money and the right business model they can buy a cure. "
In this week's New Yorker, an article about a pharmaceutical company who pays for the speed at which drugs are developed. Is it advantageous to pay money as an incentive to meet deadlines, or does this only hurt the quality of the work that scientists are doing? Especially in a business such as this, communication is key to getting things done, and getting things done right.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/28/080128fa_fact_groopman
5 comments:
I think the type of research model described in this article really confronts the problem of some scientists being unwilling to share their data and information. A large part of this unwillingness to share does seem to be due to the fear of losing prestige or credit for work. Restructuring research regarding diseases such as myeloma, (where "the basic biology is known to a certain extant") into the more business-like format of Giusti's approach, might make researchers focus more on the 'product' (cures//effective drugs) rather than the prestige. However, I do agree with what the oncologist Todd Golub said, that we also need to balance this sort of directed research with a more exploratory research model.
I think that the aggressive approach Guisti is using and the deadlines she is setting may not be the most productive way to find cures. Having a set deadline could cause researchers to be a little more careless with their work and I think a cure for such a serious disease is nothing to be toyed with. Science research is a process, not something you can put a time limit on. However, it is wrong if they're unwilling to share information for fear of not receiving credit for their work. I truly hope this is not the researchers biggest concern.
I think it's great to encourage scientists to share their ideas. Collaborating allows new ideas to form that may have gone unnoticed if everyone worked alone. Money certainly makes things easier. The strict deadlines and demand to show results is a little unsettling, however. Scientists may be afraid of not getting their money if there are no results, and sometimes there really are just no results. One would hope that a scientist wouldn't try to force (or fabricate?) results to meet a deadline. Like was said above me, these treatments are not to be taken lightly.
The following statement from the article particularly caught my attention, as it sparked thoughts of the norms and counternorms discussed in class: “The academic system is broken,” Johnson told me. “Researchers focus on publishing to get tenure. It’s all about credit for discoveries.” Johnson’s statement is a direct example of the counternorm, solitariness, in that scientists are claiming priority of their work, or ownership. However, his statement about how the “academic system is broken” confused me a bit because this competition is not anything new in science. For example, when Darwin published On The Origin of Species, he published in order to claim ownership of his ideas on evolution and natural selection before Wallace got his work out. In summary, solitariness it not something new in science, and the academic system is not necessarily broken. The same counternorms are at work as were 200 years ago.
Post a Comment