Hello Pedro. I viewed this question several times before I decided to contribute because I can understand many sides to this, all of which have merit. I too have notice redundancy that I estimate to be around 80%-95% on the "hot" (popular and well-funded) research topics that are nearing the end of their life (i.e. researched to death). As an academic there are two significant variables that affect your research whether we like it or not. First, tenure in many institutions, especially Tier 1 research institutions, depends on how many of your articles are published. Second, funding and hot topics go together. Once a topic is hot either due to forced funding such as occurred with the tobacco industry lawsuits or a result of a new issue that spurs voluntary funding, a plethora of researchers jump on the bandwagon. Initially, a variety of new findings emerge, but as the topic becomes over-researched and/or the funding dries up, he majority of the studies replicate a high percentage of what has already been done, with the exception of one or two new variables that allows the study to be published. Sometimes there is just not much more you can think of to add, but as long as the funding is available (and most research is much to expensive to support out-of-pocket) and there is pressure to get a publication, the opportunity will be taken. I don't mean to paint a negative view of those of us who do research because this process is about survival as well as making significant and useful contributions to the betterment of people and society.

I believe that philosophy, the arts and social culture should be incorporated into health/medical research, any or all of which might expose groundbreaking ideas and explanations for health behavior and disease states. The overwhelming challenge is to be able to control those variables in such a way as to make them meaningful in the findings and that is why many researchers won't go there. There is a higher probability that an article will not be accepted or funded if those variables cannot be well-explained, which brings us back to the publish or perish issue. But, you know, I am all for trying and, while I value applied research, I am also a proponent of basic research that includes ideas and variables that cause us to think outside of the box. Some of the most significant and groundbreaking discoveries have come from those who are not afraid to go against the grain.

As an aside, there is an old movie called "The Paper Chase" that beautifully describes the publish or perish process that has a long history and is still alive today.

Thanks Pedro, for an insightful observation that I am sure many of us have noticed but haven't taken the time to address.

Hello Pedro. I viewed this question several times before I decided to contribute because I can understand many sides to this, all of which have merit. I too have notice redundancy that I estimate to be around 80%-95% on the "hot" (popular and well-funded) research topics that are nearing the end of their life (i.e. researched to death). As an academic there are two significant variables that affect your research whether we like it or not. First, tenure in many institutions, especially Tier 1 research institutions, depends on how many of your articles are published. Second, funding and hot topics go together. Once a topic is hot either due to forced funding such as occurred with the tobacco industry lawsuits or a result of a new issue that spurs voluntary funding, a plethora of researchers jump on the bandwagon. Initially, a variety of new findings emerge, but as the topic becomes over-researched and/or the funding dries up, he majority of the studies replicate a high percentage of what has already been done, with the exception of one or two new variables that allows the study to be published. Sometimes there is just not much more you can think of to add, but as long as the funding is available (and most research is much to expensive to support out-of-pocket) and there is pressure to get a publication, the opportunity will be taken. I don't mean to paint a negative view of those of us who do research because this process is about survival as well as making significant and useful contributions to the betterment of people and society.

I believe that philosophy, the arts and social culture should be incorporated into health/medical research, any or all of which might expose groundbreaking ideas and explanations for health behavior and disease states. The overwhelming challenge is to be able to control those variables in such a way as to make them meaningful in the findings and that is why many researchers won't go there. There is a higher probability that an article will not be accepted or funded if those variables cannot be well-explained, which brings us back to the publish or perish issue. But, you know, I am all for trying and, while I value applied research, I am also a proponent of basic research that includes ideas and variables that cause us to think outside of the box. Some of the most significant and groundbreaking discoveries have come from those who are not afraid to go against the grain.

As an aside, there is an old movie called "The Paper Chase" that beautifully describes the publish or perish process that has a long history and is still alive today.

Thanks Pedro, for an insightful observation that I am sure many of us have noticed but haven't taken the time to address.

Please note the closely related question here at RG:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_many_of_us_among_scientists_have_a_feeling_that_we_are_in_the_midst_of_an_unrecognized_but_unprecedented_scientific_crisis_and_are_at_the_threshold_of_an_unparalleled_transitional_period_in_scie

Dear Pedro, you posted an important question, but perhaps also your willies about a certain scientific environment. I'm a physician daily facing with human problems related to philosophy, general culture, psychology, science and...health problems to be helped and solved. It's a diffuse thinking that medicine is a mix between art and science (see "Harrison's Textbook of Medicine"), nevertheless I believe that helps to better solve health problem for any single person will come from the progress of science, more than any progress of art or philosophy, isn't it? I'm convinced also that this changing times need multi culture , not only multidiscipline. I read with interest also the website of Lev Goldfarb at http://www.cs.unb.ca/~goldfarb/ (see Lev's intervention above). Probably we need now to joint all the redundant scientific data that a human mind is no more able to govern, and we need informatics to do this. I noticed that Lev Goldfarb, who's a known expert of pattern recognition, unfortunately avoided to insert into his field of interest both medicine and psychology. Perhaps, medicine and psychology even more need of the work of Lev more than he can imagine.

Dear Marco,

Thanks for your support!

I just want to mention that http://www.cs.unb.ca/~goldfarb/ is now outdated, and here at RG I listed another one at LinkedIn

http://ca.linkedin.com/pub/lev-goldfarb/1/308/858.

As to "the current state of research", I don't think it can be properly evaluated without the perspective that my above RG question raises.

I'm glad to see some very nice input into this question. Thank you all for contributing. It's also good to see that someone else also asked this question before. I was not aware of it though.

I have a bachelor in sports sciences, a master of science in sports medicine and i'm a PhD student in Exercise neuroscience. During the years, apart from my degrees, I have attended some medicine and computer science lectures and I would like to do a Mechatronics degree. I like to read philosophical works and am an appreciator of most forms of art. I am faced with several impairments from my primary education and upbringing that make me look into what are the driving forces behind things. Also, I too have read Harrison's book, which I found amazing!

Once I heard a 60 year old Physicist and Engineer saying that we must support research because in it resides the key for our species and planet survival.

Well, that make me think. Our species and the planet survived a long time without science. So, does it really matter? I think the largest motivation for science is enjoyment and trying to make life better for us and the ones around us. Significant long term survival of anything is probably not very affected by our efforts, that is, until we find a way to be beat death. Although, it seams that the chase for reputation and the work for survival are impairing the above.

It is here that I see a great gap that was ( and is still a little bit) filled by philosophy.

Human and planetary salvation may as well come from technology and science development. However this development is mostly just possibly by embracing philosophies of life and the arts. I'll illustrate: For climate change, the money allocation is done trough priorities and for some the priorities is climate change, others is health. This is associated with peoples own beliefs, philosophy and culture. Only trough philosopical analysis it is possible redesigning and recomposing these systems, thus allowing for science and technological efforts to be redirected.

A cut if gas emissions can possibly be mostly archived by politics and human condition sensitive beings. Of course, in a microcosmos perspective, one can argue that the creation of a pancreatic cell replacement can save a patient. But we are looking at the driving force behind this.

Leonardo Da Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus. All models of renessaince man or polymath. What happened to this way of life, where people mastered several areas of skills? These people had deep knowledge in several areas and trough the combination of the mastered various fields, these people created breakthroughs in a few of them. Breakthroughs that are hard to do at the moment by a single individual. They mastered, speech, politics, mathematics, physics, painting, music, etc.

I do not think that it is not only because knowledge is much more abundant in the various areas and one cannot simply dominate several fields. I believe that this model was the source for outstanding creativity and problem solving in they age.

Now we have unidirectional formed scientists. Before, Da Vinci was expert in manny fields which had nothing and all to do with each other. This lead to a supreme innovation. One can say that now it is not possible to know much of several fields. Now we have much more efficient and fast systems of learning and research. Before they spent much longer to archive anything. So in this regard, we may have a larger advantage than ever before.

Also, have a look at David Hume work "Treatise of Human Nature" where he wrote that Nature says: "I will tolerate your passion for science but make it human so that it has a direct relationship with action and society. I forbid you the complicated thought and profound research; I will punish you severely by the melancholy and endless uncertainty that they involve you with and by the cold reception that your alleged discoveries will find when communicated. Be a philosopher, but, between your philosophy, be a Man."

Should we give more attention to horizontal individual education which binds several fields?