Is good medical research directed at testing hypotheses? Or is there a competing model of good medical research that sees hypothesis generating research as a valuable end? In an intriguing essay appearing in the August 21, 2009 issue of Cell, Maureen O’Malley and co-authors show how current funding mechanisms at agencies like NIH and NSF center their model of scientific merit around the testing of hypotheses (e.g. does molecule X cause phenomenon Y? does drug A outperform drug B?). However, as the authors (and others) point out, many areas of research are not based on such “tightly bounded spheres of inquiry.” They suggest that a “more complete representation of the iterative, interdisciplinary, and multidimensional relationships between various modes of scientific investigation could improve funding agency guidelines.”
BibTeX
@Manual{stream2010-74, title = {Hypothesis Generator}, journal = {STREAM research}, author = {Jonathan Kimmelman}, address = {Montreal, Canada}, date = 2010, month = feb, day = 9, url = {http://www.translationalethics.com/2010/02/09/hypothesis-generator/} }
MLA
Jonathan Kimmelman. "Hypothesis Generator" Web blog post. STREAM research. 09 Feb 2010. Web. 05 Dec 2024. <http://www.translationalethics.com/2010/02/09/hypothesis-generator/>
APA
Jonathan Kimmelman. (2010, Feb 09). Hypothesis Generator [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.translationalethics.com/2010/02/09/hypothesis-generator/
Leave a Reply