Scientific breakthroughs have been few and far between in recent decades. Consider, for example, the problem of cancer. More than 40 years ago President Nixon declared war on cancer, but today’s therapies show only incremental improvement over those that existed at the time. Breakthroughs of the magnitude of the polio vaccine, the laser, the antibiotic, or the transistor, are simply not happening.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We see two main reasons, both related to existing science-funding mechanisms.

 

In the past, unexpected observations often led rather quickly to breakthroughs — think of Alexander Fleming and penicillin. Today, funding bureaucracies constrain scientific efforts into acceptable niches (e.g., stem cells, genomics, nanotechnology). Any digression to pursue an unexpected finding puts scientists at risk for future funding. With risk aversion as the norm, breakthroughs rarely emerge.

 

The institutional vetting process also contributes to the dearth of breakthroughs. To review grant proposals science administrators seek the most established scientific leaders, i.e., the leading proponents of the status quo. Any applicants challenging the views of those leaders rarely succeed, and therefore, existing paradigms persist even if inadequate.

 

Science-agency administrators acknowledge these (and other) impediments. Seeking to address the issues, NIH leaders convened a workshop entitled “Fostering Innovation.” Directors from the highest levels participated. One of us (GHP) was the main academic speaker (video). The agency implemented several of the proffered suggestions, which helped patch some defects. But crafting a comprehensive solution requires dealing with the main obstacle: the reluctance of scientific leaders and other stakeholders to consider ideas that threaten their own standing.

 

To achieve the needed action, we’ve founded an international institute chartered to invest in promising ideas that challenge tired, worn-out paradigms. The IVS will receive proposals worldwide from all realms of science. Scientists from outside the respective proposals’ area will judge their merit, thereby minimizing bias or self-interest. A pool of the most highly rated proposals would then receive funding.

 

One unique feature of the plan will make a difference:

 

The IVS will fund the idea, not just the person advancing that idea. That is, it will seek out and fund multiple groups using diverse approaches to pursue the same unconventional idea. A dozen – even a half dozen - groups cannot be ignored. Challenger and orthodoxy will therefore compete on equal footing, and the better of the two approaches will soon prevail.

 

This strategy can bring realized revolutions — outcomes that could greatly enhance the realization of a cure for cancer, a solution for AIDS and diabetes, a reliable predictor of earthquakes, a cheap form of clean energy, etc. It can solve many of society’s seemingly intractable problems.