Samantha Call
Final Project Rough Draft
12-5-2014
Seminar in Composition
When
we look at the last one hundred years in terms of scientific discovery, we are
often amazed out how far humans have come in so short a time. Is it really so impressive though? In the grander scope of the universe, how
much do we actually know? Next to
nothing. As humans, we see ourselves as
limitless beings who can go on to discover everything there is. However, even if our intelligence would allow
for unlimited growth and discovery, our intelligence has made that impossible
through its development of a hierarchical structure that defines how we
function in nearly every aspect of society.
No longer is a hierarchy contained to the government or to
businesses. Every aspect of life is now
an industry with a ladder of climbing ranks that everyone is always looking to
ascend. While a hierarchy is effective
in some places, in others it can become a major hindrance. One such place is in the realm of scientific
research. While it is true that people
are always looking for more answers about ourselves and the universe we live
in, it is also true that how and what we study is greatly limited by the
structure in which scientists must operate.
The current structure of science as an “industry” is hindering
advancements in technology and knowledge that could improve the quality of life
and longevity of individuals and of society as a whole. Humans as individuals and as a race need to
redefine the qualifications and motives behind scientific research in order to
survive and thrive. We should do so by reevaluating
the current structure of the scientific industry and reforming it so that it is
not based solely on wealth and connections to powerful people within the
system.
To even begin looking for funding from organization,
scientists must first build up their reputations. Doing so requires connections with
individuals higher up than them in the scientific hierarchy. There are the hospital administrators,
college and university professors and researchers, and other scientists who
have already established themselves through their own research. To get in with these people, you need to find
exactly the right internships while you are still in college, know how to
infiltrate their social and professional groups, and use every form of flattery
you can to please or impress them. In
other words, be the epitome of a people pleaser. Once you find people in the field, you have
the ability to publish articles and work with those people on their
projects. Only after you have your name
connected to someone higher up in the hierarchy will any company even consider
reviewing any grant applications of yours.
The grant application process is extremely long and complicated. According to scientist Peter A. Lawrence,
every grant has to make it past two groups of people, the marketers or
accountants of the company, and the scientific review board. Both are conditioned to not accept the
majority of applications. Marketers and accountants
only want to give money to projects they know will succeed, while the
scientists are more concerned with their own reputations, which they do not
want to risk by passing through acceptances for projects that may not be
successful. Even projects that are
deemed acceptable by both groups often are not awarded grants because,
according to Richard Mann, a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and
Molecular Biophysics at Columbia University, “there just aren’t enough funds in
a single…grant to pay for a PI salary, plus supplies, plus the salaries of one
or two other people.” Ultimately, you
may have a life changing idea and a solid grant application, but if the project
is too large, risky, or it doesn’t play into the agenda of the company, you
will never get funded.
The lack of sufficient funding and the difficulty in
obtaining the funding is the fault of the hierarchy. Everyone is protecting their own interests,
so they are never willing to risk their position to back research that is
unusual or completely untested. That
untested research, however, could be the key to unlocking new technology or
insights. For example, a scientist may
believe they have found a new and improved cancer treating drug. However, that scientist will have a hard time
finding a company to fund them. Those
companies who would be interested in funding cancer drugs, are most likely
already doing so. With a stake in
already proven drugs, those companies do not want to risk their profits by
endorsing another drug. Additionally,
the research would be expensive, and if the study concludes that the new drug
is ineffective, the company is out of the money they spent on funding. These risks make it difficult for new drugs
to be tested. The same drug that doesn’t
get tested, though, could be the same drug that safely cures cancer and ensures
longer lives in patients.
New drugs are not the only things being shortcut by the
system. Technology that could be helpful
in diagnosing and treating patients is also left without funding. One such piece of technology is associated
with the science of teledermatopathology.
This branch of science deals with using slides with pictures of the body
on them for diagnostic purposes. The new
technology would be able to send the slides across the world so that places
with less highly trained doctors can serve patients with the help of doctors
from other areas. Although the
technology has been found effective, there are laws in place that require each
institution in possession of a machine to use their own money to test it to
make sure it is efficient. There is
little to no funding for such testing, which means that many patients will go
undiagnosed. The lack of funding costs
people their lives, and that comes at the benefit of those who are working
their way up the hierarchy. Nobody wants
to risk losing their job over a risky grant or an expensive test, so they play
it safe and only grant money to scientists whose ideas are noncontroversial and
are likely to work or to those who are above themselves in the hierarchy. Small scientists with great ideas are boxed
out of the arena and their ideas are forgotten or stashed away.
R.C. Lewontin
condemns this system in his work, “Biology as Ideology.” According to Lewontin, humans are
self-concerned beings. The structure of
the scientific hierarchy plays right into this, rewarding those who are seeking
to move up the hierarchy and ignoring those only looking to make scientific discoveries. There is a preoccupation with status quo that
causes companies to filter the studies they back. Lewontin demonstrates this by using the
example of studies regarding the DNA of people of different races. Both white and black children in Britain had
their genes looked at and compared to their IQ scores. While the study revealed no underlying
biological difference between the children of different races, those behind the
study revealed something about themselves through their choice to pursue this
type of research. Instead of looking
into research that could positively change the future, they were looking for
research that would maintain the status quo, so that they could say there was a
reason that a minority was rightfully below them in the hierarchy. As Lewontin writes, “it is meant to
legitimize the structures of inequality in our society by putting a biological
gloss on them” (Lewontin, 37).
Individuals and companies will only support research that benefits them
and improves their position in the hierarchy, which is another reason the
hierarchy is so destructive.
Individuals who benefit from the hierarchical system of
the scientific industry obviously find ways to attempt to validate its
existence. One way they do so is by
asserting that the system serves as a filter.
It keeps the unqualified and unreliable scientist out and keeps the
successful and reliable ones in. Without
it, they claim, anyone would be able to begin their own study. This could lead to the wasting of money that
could be used for other, more effective studies, or to the reduction of funding
from companies or individuals who are turned off by bad projects in the past. Funding for research could diminish completely
in this case and useless studies would be undertaken, taking up valuable
resources. There is, indeed, a need for
a filter in the scientific world, but this filter should not hinder the advance
of legitimate research. If the hierarchy
can be considered a filter, then it is doing its job so well that hardly
anything can get through. The small,
insignificant grains of research can get through, but the large chunks of gold
that hold the real value are left behind.
An
example of this is a recent study on a gene variant in Latina women that
indicates a forty percent decrease in the likelihood of getting breast
cancer. However, the study of this gene
is so limited that scientists have gotten nothing from their research thus
far. They are not taking any risks or
trying anything new. The scientists
believe that simply finding a small link between the gene and breast cancer
constitutes an entire study. The issue
is that they still know next to nothing about the gene and what triggers it and
what causes it to reduce the risk of breast cancer. Lewontin would argue that the geneticists involved in this study are failing to
make the distinction “between correlation and identity,” making the mistake of
assuming that “it is the correlation that indicates the role of genes”
(Lewontin, 34). The study has uncovered
such a small piece of the puzzle that it is insignificant. It does nothing to get us closer to a cure or
treatment for breast cancer. Development
in genetics can often cause people to get excited about the possibilities of eliminating
issues such as breast cancer, but it is important to stay grounded and realize
the limitations of some genetic studies.
The variant genes may appear to be the answer, but they could only be a
partial answer or possibly not even that.
The connections between the variant gene and a reduced risk of breast
cancer may be the basis for more studies, but it is important to note that they
do not provide us all of the answers.
Due to the limitations of the scientific hierarchy, these are the only
kinds of studies that are constantly being supported. Larger, riskier studies are pushed aside,
even though they are the ones that could
actually find a cure or treatment.
Works Cited
Danielle Giambrone, Babar K. Rao, Amin
Esfahani, Shaan Rao, Obstacles hindering the mainstream practice of
teledermatopathology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Volume
71, Issue 4, October 2014, Pages 772-780, ISSN 0190-9622,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.04.043.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962214014005)
Lawrence, P. (2009, September 15).
Grantsmanship and the Application Process. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735719/
Lewontin, R.
(1992). Biology as ideology. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.
O'Connor, A.
(2014). Genetic Variant May Shield Latinas From Breast Cancer. The New York
Times. [online] Available at:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/20/genetic-variant-may-shield-latinas-from-breast-cancer/?_php=true&_type=blogs&module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%7D&_r=0
[Accessed 21 Oct. 2014].
Undsci.berkeley.edu,
(2014). Who pays for science?. [online] Available at: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays
[Accessed 19 Nov. 2014].
Your introduction is very good, although I’d like (at some point, at least) to understand a little more clearly what it means to de-industrialize science.
ReplyDeleteIn the second paragraph, you explain the general situation clearly, and certainly you’re not alone in seeing things this way, but it’s light on citation/evidence. Because this is a technical subject that most people won’t understand well, you need to err on the side of more evidence, never less.
"The lack of sufficient funding and the difficulty in obtaining the funding is the fault of the hierarchy.” My counterargument would be that the lack of sufficient funding is because of funding cuts in recent years. That still doesn’t mean that the hierarchies aren’t a problem, but the funding situation would be problematic even if less hierarchical - at least that’s my perception.
"For example, a scientist may believe they have found a new and improved cancer treating drug. However, that scientist will have a hard time finding a company to fund them.” - I read a very recent article about this very subject - the drug was an important new form of insulin. The guy had to found his own company in order to get funded, if I remember right. That being said, you need to present more evidence & generalize less here!
The Lewontin/breast cancer material remains fine - maybe you could have transitioned into it more effectively?
Overall: I love the topic, and I think your approach is fine. What you need more of is evidence - you generalize too much, and although I mostly or even always agree with you, you need to assume a skeptical reader, not a friendly one. Instead of using abstract or made up examples (your hypothetical cancer drug needs to not be hypothetical, but real). This is a rich topic and you write about it well, but it will stand or fall ultimately on the quality of your research, which needs to be more and better.