Medical science will make great progress when it's able to to challenge some of its basic assumptions.<p>No single person did more damage to the progress of Medical Science than Ancel Keys [1]. Dr. Keys hypothesized that heart disease was caused by the consumption of saturated fats, and recommended that people avoid the consumption of animal fat, in favor of deodorized polyunsaturated vegetable oil.<p>We now know that partially-hydrogenated oils (such as were used in Crisco, before it was reformulated in the early 2000's) are the real villains. But the grocery store shelves are still lined with 'healthy' Safflower, Soybean, Corn, and Cottonseed oils.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys#Seven_Countries_Study" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys#Seven_Countries_Stu...</a><p>The drug industry has done a lot of damage too. For example, Doctors have spent decades suppressing cholesterol levels, instead of trying to figure out the meaning of high cholesterol levels. Dissidents against the cholesterol hypothesis have been gaining traction in recent years, even among the professional class.<p>In <i>Anatomy of an Epidemic,</i> [2] Robert Whitaker covers how the pharmaceutical industry conquered the psychiatric profession in the 1980's.<p>[2] <a href="http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20an%20Epidemic.html" rel="nofollow">http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20...</a>
> What’s more, marketable discoveries will be group affairs, with collaborative licensing deals -- no matter who led the research.<p>I've been talking to a colleague this week, who casually observed to me that I will be dinged in my annual reviews if I'm not perceived to be "a team player". People don't understand that only the most trivial jobs are done "collaboratively". When you're digging a ditch, you need a team. When you're making an intellectual effort, you need to encourage individual effort or you'll just get a herd of researchers rehashing known results. That's the major problem with "team science", and Parker is doubling down on this.
this is great. rather than trying to setup a charity or give money away, they just run the standard ruthless capitalism play and make a business deal. They just purposely make a very bad deal for themselves in order to give the money away.
Yes! Collaboration may lead even to open source drugs:<p><a href="http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93" rel="nofollow">http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=93</a>
This is all confusion. Science is a "Bayesian Community" (to coin a phrase). It collaborates already, as needed, albeit inefficiently. One could improve the collaborative process, but to strong arm it is just ignorance of everything about science. This is just rich children throwing their money around.
I guess after Trump's election, people who have money will try to stand out and show that capitalism is not always inhumane. Either that or they will realize that wealth is not just a reward of power, it's also a responsibility to their country and their citizens. I wish the wealthy would see their achievement as a success for their nation and employees, not for their own self. The whole anti government anti collectivism anti taxes and "I did it myself" is really a plague.<p>There are many example of very wealthy individuals of the 19th and 20th century who gave a lot and it still lives to that day.