I suggest that the critical issue is government financing. What views are subsidized by the bureaucracy? Government research programs draw people and resources away from corporate and private research. The UN, WHO, etc. collectivize nations.
Having driven through Breezewood, PA on numerous occasions, it has a nightmarish, Interstate-Highway-plowing-through-the-middle-of-a-small-town feel that is all its own.
But, the look? Yeah. The look is so very similar to many other places.
My experience in Science, Regulation, and Administration jibes with Crichton's description. A handful of people on a problem beats an army. You find too many detractors and tangent makers with large groups, as well as those far too concerned with consensus before the problem is addressed.
More people limit your solution set. Some study long lost to me said that your optimum multidisciplinary group is somewhere between 7 and 11 people. More than that and your solution discovery capability drops precipitously. I suspect agreeing on the solution does as well.
Peer review went to passing a gatekeeper group who tended papers or articles for only the proper line of thought. Cleminoles, per Jonathon Swift. Book I gave a number of damping examples like this.
Reading older scientific books and papers, the differences in approaches, methods and writing styles from one country to another, and sometimes even within the same country, were truly serious.
I suggest that the critical issue is government financing. What views are subsidized by the bureaucracy? Government research programs draw people and resources away from corporate and private research. The UN, WHO, etc. collectivize nations.
Having driven through Breezewood, PA on numerous occasions, it has a nightmarish, Interstate-Highway-plowing-through-the-middle-of-a-small-town feel that is all its own.
But, the look? Yeah. The look is so very similar to many other places.
My experience in Science, Regulation, and Administration jibes with Crichton's description. A handful of people on a problem beats an army. You find too many detractors and tangent makers with large groups, as well as those far too concerned with consensus before the problem is addressed.
More people limit your solution set. Some study long lost to me said that your optimum multidisciplinary group is somewhere between 7 and 11 people. More than that and your solution discovery capability drops precipitously. I suspect agreeing on the solution does as well.
That optimal group size fits with Dunbar numbers.
Peer review went to passing a gatekeeper group who tended papers or articles for only the proper line of thought. Cleminoles, per Jonathon Swift. Book I gave a number of damping examples like this.
Brilliant and prescient quote from Michael Crichton.
Reading older scientific books and papers, the differences in approaches, methods and writing styles from one country to another, and sometimes even within the same country, were truly serious.