Launching a Second Scientific Revolution

At the root of the scientific revolution was the idea that there was not, and should never be, a scientific authority.

For centuries, a small number of ecclesiastical powers had decided such questions as whether the moons of Jupiter move.

The scientific revolution placed these questions in the hands of a lot of very smart scientists, including those with telescopes.

Unfortunately, we find ourselves back in a situation today, as demonstrated a few years ago by the COVID lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements, where a relatively small number of people—directors of government agencies like the National Institutes of Health, heads of international agencies like the World Health Organization, and editors of prestigious journals—have the power to say what is true or false in science.

But before I go on, I want to make a historical defense of the National Institutes of Health, which I now lead.

The history of the NIH is incredible.

Almost every modern advance in biomedicine has, at its root, an NIH investment.

NIH is by far the single largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, providing 85% of funding in every single area of biomedicine.

The development of heart attack prevention and treatments came out of the NIH.

Almost every cancer advance and cancer treatment came out of the NIH.

Because of the NIH, we now have advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis that, when I was a medical student in the 1990s, seemed beyond reach.

Because of the NIH, we can now treat cystic fibrosis, a terrible disease that used to kill young people in their teens and twenties, allowing those who have it to live full lives.

we have not one but two cures for sickle cell anemia, a disease that primarily affects African American children.

So I am strongly of the view that the NIH is an institution worth saving.

It is, however, an institution that has not done its job well in some time.

The mission of the NIH is to fund research that improves the health and longevity of the American people.

But when we look at life expectancy in the United States since 2010, and this is not the case in most European countries, we find that there has been no improvement despite the huge investments we have made in medical research.

See, for instance, the accompanying graph comparing life expectancy over time in the US and Sweden.

If we continue as we have been, the prospect of our children living shorter, less healthy lives than we do is a real possibility.

We can solve them, but we can only solve them if we fix science, which suffers today from three great problems.

At the root of the scientific revolution was the idea that there was not, and should never be, a scientific authority.

For centuries, a small number of ecclesiastical powers had decided such questions as whether the moons of Jupiter move.

The scientific revolution placed these questions in the hands of a lot of very smart scientists, including those with telescopes.

Unfortunately, we find ourselves back in a situation today, as demonstrated a few years ago by the COVID lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccination requirements, where a relatively small number of people—directors of government agencies like the National Institutes of Health, heads of international agencies like the World Health Organization, and editors of prestigious journals—have the power to say what is true or false in science.

But before I go on, I want to make a historical defense of the National Institutes of Health, which I now lead.

The history of the NIH is incredible.

Almost every modern advance in biomedicine has, at its root, an NIH investment.

NIH is by far the single largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, providing 85% of funding in every single area of biomedicine.

The development of heart attack prevention and treatments came out of the NIH.

Almost every cancer advance and cancer treatment came out of the NIH.

Because of the NIH, we now have advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis that, when I was a medical student in the 1990s, seemed beyond reach.

Because of the NIH, we can now treat cystic fibrosis, a terrible disease that used to kill young people in their teens and twenties, allowing those who have it to live full lives.

we have not one but two cures for sickle cell anemia, a disease that primarily affects African American children.

So I am strongly of the view that the NIH is an institution worth saving.

It is, however, an institution that has not done its job well in some time.

The mission of the NIH is to fund research that improves the health and longevity of the American people.

But when we look at life expectancy in the United States since 2010, and this is not the case in most European countries, we find that there has been no improvement despite the huge investments we have made in medical research.

See, for instance, the accompanying graph comparing life expectancy over time in the US and Sweden.

If we continue as we have been, the prospect of our children living shorter, less healthy lives than we do is a real possibility.

We can solve them, but we can only solve them if we fix science, which suffers today from three great problems.