Skip to main content

Research for Patients

  • 93 Accesses

Abstract

The insight into the far-reaching unsuccessfulness of our current biomedical research approach—at least as far as its relevance for you as a (potential) patient is concerned—must lead to a radical rethinking if we do not want to continue to waste a large part of the resources and lead bright minds on wrong tracks with false incentives (publications instead of medical progress). None of this is a criticism of my scientific colleagues, by the way. I am sure that the same brilliant minds who now invest all their energy and strategy into producing Nature, Cell, and Science publications, and are thus among the biomedical elite, will also be the ones who make great patient-relevant discoveries with different incentives in place. In terms of content, I am convinced that abolishing disciplines organized by organ will be essential for clinics, doctors, and biomedical scientists alike (e.g. neurology, neurologist, neuroscientist). This should be easier for scientists than for clinicians and specialists whose entire career strategy has been focused on one organ. But more on that later. First, how to reform biomedical research on which medical practice is based.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

eBook
USD   19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-95293-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 12.1

Notes

  1. 1.

    VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO & ZonMw (2019) Room for everyone’s talent: Towards a new balance in recognising and rewarding academics. The Hague, https://www.vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/Position%20paper%20Room%20for%20everyone’s%20talent.pdf; Hatch A (2020) San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, The American Society for Cell Biology, https://sfdora.org/read/

  2. 2.

    Association of Academic Health Centers. Academic health centers and the social determinants of health: challenges & barriers, responses & solutions, http://wherehealthbegins.org/pdf/AAHC-SDOH-Report-ExecSum-Final.pdf; Dzau VJ et al. (2010) The role of academic health science systems in the transformation of medicine. Lancet 375:949–953, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61082-5; Channing Division of Network Medicine, Harvard University, https://www.brighamandwomens.org/research/departments/channing-division-of-network-medicine/overview

  3. 3.

    Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG et al. (2003) Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. The American Journal of Medicine, 114:477–484, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(03)00013-5

  4. 4.

    Keeley TP & Mann GE (2019) Defining Physiological Normoxia for Improved Translation of Cell Physiology to Animal Models and Humans. Physiol Rev. 99:161–234. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00041.2017

  5. 5.

    Chu JSG & Evans JA (2021) Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 118:e2021636118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118

  6. 6.

    Piper K (2019) Science funding is a mess. Could grant lotteries make it better? Vox, https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/18/18183939/science-funding-grant-lotteries-research

  7. 7.

    Adam D (2019) Science funders gamble on grant lotteries. A growing number of research agencies are assigning money randomly. Nature 575:574–575, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03572-7

  8. 8.

    Merton RK (1968) The Matthew Effect in Science. The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science 159:56–63; Bornmann L et al. (2017) Does the hα-index reinforce the Matthew effect in science? The introduction of agent-based simulations into scientometrics. Quantitative Science Studies 1:331–346, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00008; Bol T et al. (2018) The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115:4887–4890.

  9. 9.

    Herb U (2016) Guerilla Open Access and Robin Hood PR against market failure. Telepolis, https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Guerilla-Open-Access-und-Robin-Hood-PR-gegen-Marktversagen-3378648.html; Kühl E (2016) Who wants the knowledge? Die Zeit, https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2016-02/sci-hub-open-access-wissenschaft-paper-gratis; Hummel P (2016) Millions of scientific articles illegally available online, Spektrum der Wissenschaft, https://www.spektrum.de/news/sci-hub-millionen-fachartikel-illegal-im-netz-verfuegbar/1399718

  10. 10.

    Van Noorden R (2016) Nature’s 10: Paper pirate. The founder of an illegal hub for paywalled papers has attracted litigation and acclaim. Nature 540:512, https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.21157!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/540507a.pdf

  11. 11.

    https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu

  12. 12.

    https://www.nature.com/nature-research/open-access

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schmidt, H.H.H.W. (2022). Research for Patients. In: The end of medicine as we know it - and why your health has a future. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95293-8_12

Download citation