I’d guess that if Don Swanson’s methods are as promising as this book suggests they might are, then eventually, a lot of people will eventually, gradually, adopt them.
Of course, it would happen much faster if people could become literally rather than metaphorically rich by using his methods.
Also, I suspect that the academic rewards system—mostly set up to provide rewards like prestige and repute within a very narrow speciality—would have a hard time adjusting itself to accommodate any multidisciplinary, “connected science” approach, even if its benefits and successes are obvious. Is the medical science establishment even capable of rewarding someone like Don Swanson? Maybe that’s not fair, because Don Swanson is retired. But what specific academic department in what specific school is going to give some young researcher tenure because of some innovative discovery involving “connected science”? And, in the meantime, why should a young graduate student spend precious time on “connected science” when the academic/research job market is already competitive?
If this approach is as valid as it seems, the powers that be will come around eventually—but not quickly.
P.S.
Certainly, the pharmaceutical companies should be working these methods to the hilt if they’re not already (probably they are.) But still, are these comparative literature methods likely to result in a new, patentable drug? The result described above involved magnesium deficiency, which is good to know, but provides no obvious great profits to anybody involved. I’d bet that, in the medical field, at least, most “connected science” results would show enormous health benefits from unpatentable results like eating a balanced diet, exercising regularly, not smoking, and having good genes.
I’d guess that if Don Swanson’s methods are as promising as this book suggests they might are, then eventually, a lot of people will eventually, gradually, adopt them.
Of course, it would happen much faster if people could become literally rather than metaphorically rich by using his methods.
Also, I suspect that the academic rewards system—mostly set up to provide rewards like prestige and repute within a very narrow speciality—would have a hard time adjusting itself to accommodate any multidisciplinary, “connected science” approach, even if its benefits and successes are obvious. Is the medical science establishment even capable of rewarding someone like Don Swanson? Maybe that’s not fair, because Don Swanson is retired. But what specific academic department in what specific school is going to give some young researcher tenure because of some innovative discovery involving “connected science”? And, in the meantime, why should a young graduate student spend precious time on “connected science” when the academic/research job market is already competitive?
If this approach is as valid as it seems, the powers that be will come around eventually—but not quickly.
P.S. Certainly, the pharmaceutical companies should be working these methods to the hilt if they’re not already (probably they are.) But still, are these comparative literature methods likely to result in a new, patentable drug? The result described above involved magnesium deficiency, which is good to know, but provides no obvious great profits to anybody involved. I’d bet that, in the medical field, at least, most “connected science” results would show enormous health benefits from unpatentable results like eating a balanced diet, exercising regularly, not smoking, and having good genes.