Academia Hinders Advancements In Science

At one point in time, it used to be popular in science to push new concepts  and to push new ways of improving our lives. But along comes academia, where it is taught to go along with the majority rather than cause any waves. Thus, maintaining the status quo!

Fred Southwick who is a professor at the University of Florida wrote an opinion piece in The Scientist that addresses this very issue…

“Many who succeed in advancing to leadership positions in academia have been cautious, making few enemies and stirring little controversy. But such a strategy fails to generate the insights that drive scientific fields of research forward. The history of science is filled with mavericks who refused to accept the prevailing theories and challenged the status quo.”

“In the field of infectious diseases, those scientific mavericks included Louis Pasteur, whose germ theory was ridiculed; Joseph Lister, who promoted the concept of sterilization; and Ignaz Semmelweis, who determined the cause of puerperal fever and emphasized the importance of hand washing as a preventative measure. In recent years, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren challenged the dogma that peptic ulcer disease was the result of stress when they proposed and proved that this disease was actually caused primarily by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori.”

Academia became an influential tool directed at scientists because it was backed by huge sums of money which prevents researchers from stepping out of the structure given to them that was established by the grant itself. Meaning that if you think outside the box, you loose your funding. As a result of success being as low as it is, scientists tend to focus more on writing their proposals rather than doing innovated research in the lab.

Fred Southwick concludes his opinion piece by saying this…

“Thankfully, some scientific institutes recognize the need for collaboration and, following the lead of the business world, are utilizing teams of experts in different specialties to work together to generate the hypotheses and design the appropriate experiments to advance knowledge, promote growth, and foster creativity in their fields. The university system would benefit from embracing this same approach.”

“University governing bodies need to assemble leadership teams comprised of people who actually work in their laboratories and understand the challenges of today’s research environment. Ambitious and creative minds have revolutionized our world, and our perceptions of our universe, in a very short period of time. If our universities fail in their primary mission to create new knowledge, our progress toward creating a better world for everyone will be seriously compromised.”


4 thoughts on “Academia Hinders Advancements In Science

  1. And a real scientist shreds that analysis thoroughly..

    This must be the same Suzan Mazur who reported on the Altenberg Conference. I read all of the papers from that conference, and i read Mazur’s review of it. I could not believe they were describing the same conference. What she said goes beyond mere misunderstanding, into a miasma of what seem to be delibeerate lies. Lies becuase it is hard to believe that anyone who wiould show up for such a conference could understand so little of what was going on.

    Before you criticize a scienntific theory, you should know something about it beyond its name.

  2. . . . . . . . .Academia Hinders Advancements In Science

    Coming from a creationist, that’s quite a laugh.

    Consider the title of this blog—

    . . . . . . .New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism

    In about 3 years I’ve followed this blog, Michael has not reported a single “new discovery” in creationism. That could be because creationism has not advanced at all in the two centuries since it began as natural theology.

    Not a single discovery. Not a single new idea. Not a single theory as to how anything works. Not a single experimental result. Not a single advance of any kind..


    How would Michael know whether academia is holding science back? He has never seen a university faculty from the inside. He has no idea what happens or does not happen. He relies entirely upon the opinion of one person, who – – – I was going to say “who happens to agree with Michael’s ideas.” But that’s not correct. It’s putting the cart before the horse. What actually happened was that Michael sought out this article BECAUSE it reflected his own preconceived opinion. Having no first-hand knowledge of academic institutions, he is jealous of their accomplishments,

    We must remember that creationism was born as a reaction to the incr5easing complexity social life and technological progress of the US after WWI,. The founders felt left behind, unable to keep up. So they sought certainty in simple answers that anyone could understand. Even though they were wrong answers. Even though scientists, theologians, and historians had considered and dismissed them centuries ago.

  3. Some basic things to think about…:

    2012: Restructure Science Plans, Policies, Budgets

    A. Higgs Particle YOK

    Eppur Si Muove, Higgs Particle YOK
    Regardless Of Whatever Whoever

    Regardless Of Whatever Is Said By Whoever Says It –
    Higgs Particle YOK.

    S Hawking is simply wrong in accepting it. Obviously wrong.
    Everyone who accepts the story of the Higgs particle is simply wrong.
    Plain commonsense.
    Singularity and the Big Bang MUST have happened with the smallest base universe particles, the gravitons, that MUST be both energy and mass, even if they are inert mass just one smallest fraction of a second at singularity. All mass formats evolve from gravitons that convert into energy i.e. extricate from their gravitons clusters into mass formats in motion, energy. And they all end up again as mass in a repeat singularity.
    Universe expansion and re-contraction proceed simultaneously..

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

    B. Refresh Present SCIENCE Comprehensions And Restructure Science Plans, Policies And Budgets

    Who Suppresses Science Creativity? Does Academia Suppress Creativity?

    Again and again, ad absurdum:
    Since the 1920s SCIENCE is suppressed by a Technology Culture, tightly supervised by a religious old style trade union , the AAAS…

    Liberate Your Mind From Concepts Dictated By The Religious Trade-Union AAAS:

    USA Science? Re-Comprehend Origins And Essence

    * Higgs Particle? Dark Energy/Matter? Epigenetics? All YOK!

    * Earth-life is just another, self-replicating, mass format.

    * All mass formats evolve from gravitons, the primal universe mass-energy particles.

    * Since singularity gravitons are extricated from their big-bang clusters , i.e. become mobile, energy, at a constant rate.

    * All mass formats follow natural selection, i.e. intake of energy or their energy taken in by other mass formats.

    * Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Natural Selection.

    * Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, possible or probable or actual mechanisms of natural selection.

    * Life’s Evolution is the quantum mechanics of biology.

    * Every evolution, of all disciplines, is the quantum mechanics of the discipline’s natural selection.

    Update Concepts-Comprehension…
    Earth life genesis from aromaticity-H bonding
    Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation
    Seed of human-chimp genome diversity
    New Era For Science Including Genomics

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

    C. Universe Inflation And Expansion

    Inflation on Trial
    Astrophysicists interrogate one of their most successful theories


    Inflation and expansion are per Newton.

    Since the Big Bang galactic clusters loose mass at constant rate. Mass, gravitons, continue escaping at constant rate from their Big Bang fragments-clusters thus becoming energy, mass in motion, thus thrusting the clusters. Constant thrust and decreasing galactic clusters weight accelerate the separation of clusters from each other.

    Common sense.

    Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
    Natural Selection Is Built-In Hypocrisy In US Science Structure
    In addition to the omnipotency of the AAAS trade-union-church with its science testament and gospels…:

    Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice
    Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

    In the Executive Office of the President, the main body advising the president on science policy is the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Other advisory bodies exist within the Executive Office of the President, including the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Science and Technology Council.

    Further advice (on legislating science policy) is provided by extra-governmental organizations such as The National Academies, which was created and mostly funded by the federal government,[2] and the RAND Corporation, as well as other non-profit organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Chemical Society among others.

    Conflict of interest arises whenever the personal or professional interests of a board or committee member or of an expert adviser are potentially at odds with the best interests of the nonprofit…by the people for the people…

    I rest the people’s case…

    Dov Henis
    (comments from 22nd century)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s