Postscript: Political Science
333
revolutionary, from whose ideas all new scientific concepts come, is on
the outside. Donald Goodwin, chairman of psychiatry at the University
of Kansas and an innovative researcher on alcoholism, has even put it in
the form of a law of exasperation: "If it's trivial, you can probably study
it. If it's important, you probably can't."
Another unforeseen abuse has arisen, which has lowered the quality of
training in medical schools. As the peer review system developed, aca-
demic institutions saw a golden opportunity. If the government wanted
all this research done, why shouldn't it help the schools with their over-
head, such as housing, utilities, bookkeeping, and ultimately the sal-
aries of the researchers, who were part of the faculty? The influx of
money corroded academic values. The idea arose that the best teacher
was the best researcher, and the best researcher was the one who pulled
down the biggest grants. A medical school became primarily a kennel of
researchers and only secondarily a place to teach future physicians. To
survive in academia, you have to get funded and then get published.
The epidemic of fraudulent reports—and I believe only a small percent-
age of the actual fakery has been discovered—is eloquent testimony of
the pressure to make a name in the lab.
There remain today few places for those whose talents lie in teaching
and clinical work. Many people who don't care about research are forced
to do it anyway. As a result, medical journals and teaching staffs are
both drowning in mediocrity.
Finally, we must add to these factors the buying of science by the
military. To call it a form of prostitution is an insult to the oldest
profession. Nearly two thirds of the $47-billion 1984 federal research
budget went for military work, and in the field of bioelectricity the
proportion was even higher. While military sponsors often allow more
technical innovation than others, their employees must keep their
mouths shut about environmental hazards and other moral issues that
link science to the broader concerns of civilization. In the long run, even
the growth of pure knowledge (if there is such a thing) can't flourish
behind this chain link fence.
If someone does start a heretical project, there are several ways of
dealing with the threat. Grants are limited, usually for a period of one
or two years. The experimenter then must reapply. Every application is a
voluminous document filled with fine-print forms and meaningless bu-
reaucratic jargon, requiring many days of data compilation and "creative
writing." Some researchers may simply get tired of them and quit. In
any case, they must run the same gauntlet of peers each time. The sim-
plest way to nip a challenge in the bud is to turn off the money or keep