It simply did not make sense to eat poisonous food. Peer Review - Ile peer review process probably has done more to discourage innovative research than any other factor that I have observed. Editors must be conscious that, despite public protestations to the contrary, many scientistreviewers are against innovation unless it is their innovation. Innovation from others may be a threat because it diminishes the importance of the scientist's own work. Peer review in the grant giving process is so restrictive that most innovative scientists know they would never receive funding if they actually said what they were going to do.
Scientists therefore have to tell lies in their grant applications.
Such views have explicitly been stated by at least two Nobel Laureates. Wrong Economics - When a new therapy comes along that is cheaper, safer and more effective, it is seen as a competitive threat to those engaged in the therapy it will displace. Those who stand to be most economically disadvantaged naturally endeavor to block its acceptance. This presents unique difficulties for independent researchers and for therapies that do not lend themselves to patentability. It is my observation that there is a role for the insurance industry in advocating evaluation of innovative medical thera pies.