As the economy lurches deeper and deeper into a centrally planned model, is it any wonder that the speed and depth of innovation seems to be stagnating? Our friend Eugyppius crunches some numbers from a recent study and finds that the news is not good.
Via a statistical measure known as the “CD index” (for “consolidating” or “disruptive”), the authors can (very roughly) measure the foundational nature of any given paper, by looking at how often later citations of that paper also cite earlier work.
When the CD index of papers in different scientific fields is plotted over time, we see a pervasive collapse in innovative, foundational work across all fields, converging towards the same baseline.
A narrow research focus is above all a careerist tactic. Self-citation, a lack of currency with new publications, and the tendency to cite the same stuff over and over again, are all just symptoms of dimmer people publishing too much.
I have seen this in my own field. Almost all papers are now incremental, making refinements to already established techniques. Very few now strike me as truly innovative.
With a large proportion of students majoring in Black Studies, Queer Studies, Women Studies and the thousands of other useless courses and majors, our universities in the US are now utter jokes. The professors are 99% Democrats or Marxists in non STEM courses but now the STEM areas and medicine are succumbing.
As the US Government reduces spending on true research, refuses to fund anything that doesn’t smell or sound Woke, gives up on space exploration and passes on our IP (Intellectual Property) to the Chinese Communists free of charge our innovation declines.
As the Venture Capitalists fund one phone or computer application after another, one stupid renewable energy fiasco after another rather than ground breaking breakthroughs in other tech areas we will get less important innovations and just more distractions.
After finding out that 65% of our under 30 students are basically unable to read due to government schools embrace of whole word reading rather than phonics along with the new addictions of social media on Gen Z’s $1000 “Smart Phones” we will have less innovation.
The Deep State also censors anything remotely true so as to assist the Democrat Party’s lies and corruption, we will have less innovation. If the average citizen can not find out the truth that surely inhibits rational inquiry and innovation.
Readers here could add to this brief list with many more proofs. As Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit would say, “We need a bigger blog.”
I miss the days of Bell’s research labs, the stuff that came out of there that wasn’t even remotely tied to phone communications was unbelievable.
A bygone Era.
Wait till the next round of draftees ( Gen Z) goes thru and the West needs to move from a forward timed defense industry to a WW2 we need it yesterday base.
Survival breeds innovation.
Given that the underlying data stopped at 2010, is there some reason they spent 12+ years writing this paper?
How much of this is caused by gatekeeping by the leaders in these fields? the government-science complex? That our “universities” will destroy anyone who goes too far out of what is “accepted” research?
A bit of the “gate keeping” is caused by protectionism of intellectual property. If a mere advancement is published, in all likelihood a competitor will attempt and, if well funded, succeed in the race toward product development and patent filing. I imagine there are very few small independant labs remaining. Hostile takeovers, intellectual theft and scientific grift are the winds that fill today’s sails. And let’s not forget… China, Apple, and Microsoft, “ChAppleSoft” can read any written word anywhere anytime. Anything that could make a buck is, for all intents and purposes top secret.
We get to read the chaff.
So, I’m a little more optimistic regarding what seems to be a dimmer people, but very pessimistic regarding the course of valuable intellectual property and the rights of those who produce it. It’s almost as though they have no agency.
Innovation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djPQntFiseQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbG5dKlSaVc
It’s remarkably easy to make marginal advances in a field. A mediocre but hard-working researcher can crank out papers by the wheel-barrow load, especially when working with a clique of co-authors. They can soon have hundreds of papers to their name and thousands of citations of their work, and to the outsider the researcher looks brilliant.
But no, they’re still mediocre, and the sum total of their advancements is modest.
When something disruptive, like ivermectin, comes along the political-industrial-medical complex does all within its power to destroy it, no matter how many lives are lost.
There’s no truth to that whatsoever.
The plain truth is that the evidence that Ivermectin helps in treating COVID is mixed at best. It’s become an article of faith among some that it’s a miracle drug for COVID, but the science does not back that up.
I just discovered that Google and Wikipedia have changed the definition of science to accommodate your view.
I’ll go with the Meriam Webster “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.”
Many of the ivermectin studies conducted were poorly designed, perhaps maliciously so. Many doctors report excellent results from the correct use of ivermectin (and accompanying drugs in the regimen).
Did Dr Semmelweiss need “establishment science” to agree with him for hand-washing to be a good clinical practice?
“He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it.”
So any study that doesn’t back up your beliefs is poorly designed. That’s called circular thinking. And “Doctors reporting” is the start of research, not the end of it. You can not draw definitive conclusions from that. The reason medicine has advanced so much over the last century is because anecdotal evidence was NOT believed until solid controlled studies verified it.
Why do you think Ivermectin works on COVID? What are you basing your beliefs on? How is that better than mainstream, science?
Hey KM when you say “There’s no truth whatsoever” regarding IVM efficacy as a Covid treatment do you honestly believe that? That. There’s. No. Truth? Zero? Pls excuse me but I beg to differ. Here’s an excellent meta-analysis of 95 studies that does in fact show IVM efficacy, especially as a prophylaxis and early treatment, in preventing hospitalization and death: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html
Doesn’t look like “Zero” to me. It’s actually quite the opposite.
I didn’t say there’s no truth in the efficiecy of Ivermectin. I said there’s no truth in that “the political-industrial-medical complex does all within its power to destroy it.”
Learn to read, please.
KM, you’re more slippery than a buttered eel. Nothing I’ve read of yours told me anything except how great you believe the jab to be against Covid and no treatment alternative exists. Own your words. There IS proof that IVM is effective and the evidence IS clear. Further to that, doctors that use IVM successfully use it as part of a multi-drug treatment protocol to help patients beat Covid. Dr. McCullough will tell anyone that no single medication will work for everyone – just like for AIDS treatments. IVM is no different- it’s just one tool that has its place: Prophylaxis and early treatment. You recognize none of that. Deny all you want but your comments have only attacked and tried to discredit non-vax Covid treatment. You should be ashamed for intellectual dishonesty but I doubt you will.
“There IS proof that IVM is effective and the evidence IS clear.”
There are numerous papers studying Ivermectin treatment for COVID. Some find it’s of benefit, most do not, such as this one published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2115869
My take is that if Ivermectin were of significant value then the evidence would be a lot more clear. The take of individual doctors is not of much value. They are not running controlled studies, and thus do not know what the results would be without Ivermectin.
KM, the 95 study meta analysis is definitive proof IVM works. That you choose to ignore such proof speaks volumes. Sell many vacuums lately? Aren’t you due for a booster?
It’s so freakin’ typical of an Ivermectin fan to refer to “the 95 study meta analysis” as if everyone knows what that is supposed to be.
Be specific. Give a link to the paper or cite its title. There have been tens of thousands of papers written on COVID.
Like you say, KM, “Learn to read”. The link was sent to you in my 12:28 am comment above. It’s definitive. IVM is effective.
KM you are just plain f****** wrong.
And you know this how? What evidence do you have?
Eisenhower warned us.
And a State of Kleptocracy discourages freedom,innovation and private wealth/leisure.
So the State funds by bureaucratic rules..Which are;
“Never ask a question you do not already have the answer for”.
The citizen,has no freedom from bureaucratic interference and is stripped of over 1/2 their income by the parasitic overload..
The kind of innovations coming are not to be found in Academia..
They will be more along the lines of “A pox on all your house” and how can I use these resources to make my enemies extinct.
Look ma,I found a new use for the wood chipper.
No we won’t. Like it or not, our society runs on technology. Without that, we would be far, far worse off.
Universities, both public and private, do a ton of important research in technology and the science supporting that technology.
KM: I have a great recipe for cookies. You can do your study with the same ingredients and conclude that it tastes like crap. You didn’t follow the recipe, but how is that relevant?
Also, why did the political-industrial-medical complex come out with so many bald faced lies about ivermectin? “Science” is no longer about truth; it’s just an agenda.
It’s not just a matter of personal opinion. It’s a matter of what the evidence says.
And the evidence, at least that evidence gathered in a systematic and controlled manner, says Ivermectin is probably not of much use in treating COVID infection.
On its own and at certain stages of Covid progression you are correct.
However when used in conjunction with certain drugs and vitamins, used at a very early stage of Covid or before getting sick it is highly effective.
Seek those studies out , there are many instead of cherry picking the ones to support your thesis.
It’s not cherry picking when one is looking at the preponderance of the evidence.
But this is what supporters of Ivermectin keep saying — you have to apply Ivermectin at just the right time at just the right dosage with just the right other supplements or it doesn’t work.
I’m skeptical. Truly effective medicines don’t generally require everything to be JUST RIGHT to make some kind of difference. This binary type of result is not common. It sounds more like an excuse to dismiss clinical trials that give a negative result.
You’re being obtuse … I think you can read well enough to have lack of comprehension as an excuse. Whether it’s cancer or cookies or covid, certain procedures (recipes) are followed. You’re just looking at studies that didn’t follow the accepted procedure and you blame ivermectin for the poor results.
“Truly effective medicines don’t generally require everything to be JUST RIGHT to make some kind of difference.”
Dude. There’s a reason it takes so long to become a doctor. Give your head a shake.
The Cochrane Library did a meta-analysis very early on in the pandemic, and of 15 RCTs at the time (we’re over a hundred RCTs and OBS sudies now), they rejected all but 2 for reasons of poor trial design or other issues. The 2 that remained showed a 40% reduction in deaths in the IVM group. Those were the best studies at the time and they showed a huge benefit in the most important metric of all: saving lives.
How much advancement and innovation can you make when the drugstore can’t keep children’s aspirin on the shelf?
Are you blind, KM? OPEN the link on the previous comment above. Or not. You couldn’t be bothered to do so before so it demonstrates bad faith. Dishonest is as dishonest acts. Others here have lost patience with your stupid games too. “There’s thousands of papers…”. If there’s a meta-analysis that shows clear efficacy of 95 studies with 80% of them peer reviewed and slightly less than half are randomized control studies I’d call that definitive. IVM works.