I think you're being slightly too bitter / cynical regarding the "how it is now" section. Certainly, my own upbringing included logic, reasoning, and questioning things, although I suspect many parents feel that this kind of thing might undermine their authority. My siblings and I were even provided with (at the time) prohibitively expensive Commodore 64s to foster our own "research" and exploration, leading us to discover (or rather, stumble upon) basic programming before our teens. And yes, a single counter-example might not mean much, but I've seen many others with similar, fortunate upbringings.
I suspect a similar thing applies to your "system" comments. First, I'd add "re-inventing things" to the list of stuff we'd like to avoid. This is a big one; in my experience most people don't seem to have an idea about how deeply things have been researched in various directions already. As a simple example, I recently had a colleague re-invent the concept of a consumer price index, and pitch it as something brand new. As time goes on, this will just get worse and worse. In this sense, I'd add the ability to review the state of research in a particular area, the ability to perform and document research in a way that's repeatable, and these types of things to the wish-list. It just seems to me that most people pushing for more innovation in research don't seem to value these things very much.
EDIT: So really, the question for me would be whether the current approach of upbringing as well as strict research career paths do more harm (by stifling innovation) than good (by preventing people from doing bad science). Who knows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift#Kuhnian_paradigm...
Academic "conservatism" hasn't prevented them from taking over the field as collected evidence made their correctness (compared to the old model) overwhelming, so that does not seem to be much of an argument against the existing system.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Thanks for the link/info.
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
IMO, the real issue is the vast majority of people both inside and outside the establishment don't have any ideas that are both original and anywhere close to correct.
PS: It tourneys out my idea was less novel than I thought but the journey was still fun.
I see no definitive/logical reason for establishing an upper-bound on innovation. The past several centuries are a testament to the fact that biological evolution and human innovation have a symbiotic relationship^1. That's not to say that there aren't drawbacks to innovation, particularly to the implementations of said innovation, but rather that I personally believe those detrimental aspects would be best mitigated by altering implementations of current infrastructure/technology, not by stifling innovation.
From my limited anecdotal experience(therefore potentially/likely flawed) I would say that it's namely a result of aversion to change, desire to assimilate(fit in), and fear of failure.
It's a shame really; I honestly believe that a LOT of value could be gained from looking at life sciences from a completely blank/unaltered perspective. If they were void of preconceived notions as to how these underlying biological systems function I think that intelligent people would at very least yield novel concepts in terms of comprehending inputs and representing results.
To restate in different vernacular, How it is now:
If you want to do research pertaining to something that interests you personally you've got at _least_ 4 years of college before heading into the industry.(This precludes university research labs (as if you'd have project control anyway)). Not only that, but for most active-minded humans, the 17 years before college are boring as fuck(not to say that an active social life and interesting/engaging childhood makes you, in any way, less-active-minded). We literally teach children to fore-go logic and reasoning and mindlessly obey authority. We train children to read/write/copy/repeat, but we NEVER teach them to discover something novel on their own.
Which is not to say, of course, that every idea is valid(or even worthy of exploration). I mean, the system does 'work'(in that by forcing you to work up the ladder before innovating it weeds out the thoughtless/crazy/impractical ideas and ensures that anyone hoping to do research has a vested interest in the subject matter), but I think that if we, as a society, encouraged/accepted failure and were less hostile towards change we could stand to gain a lot.
Eh. This is a bit of a ramble, I guess TL,DR:
I find that the aversion to failure/change which is so inherent in society today stifles innovation.
What do you guys/gals think? Am I off base here? Would love to hear someone else's opinion on the matter, I can't enumerate the number of times that I've fully fleshed out an opinion only to have reality altering conjecture come into play.