From Alzheimer’s to Zebrafish: Eclectic Science and Regulatory Stories 72
to pursue new ideas. Even if they did, our educational system no longer fosters the skills
needed for creativity. According to one author, current curricula completely ignore the
process of how discoveries and current concepts came to be accepted.15 There is now little
attempt to teach, or even encourage the kind of creativity and complex synthesizing of
ideas that once enabled discoverers to perform major breakthroughs.
Drastic changes in medical practice and academic medicine in the past 30 years have
led to severe constriction of a clinician’s treatment time per patient and any opportunity
for serendipitous discovery. Hospital stays are shorter, preventing longitudinal studies
with inpatients who are now regularly discharged before the effects of a new therapeutic
regimen become clear.16 In psychiatric practice, for example, insurance company require-
ments for time limits and paperwork lead to clinical practices with little time for fresh
observations and much less discovery.17 Considering all of these factors, it would appear
that serendipitous discoveries are less likely to occur in the future.
References
1. Rescher N. Luck—the Brilliant Randomness of Everyday Life. Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, 1995.
2. Roberts RM. Serendipity—Accidental Discoveries in Science. John Wiley &Sons, New York, 1989.
3. Bud R. Penicillin: Triumph and Tragedy. Oxford University Press, London, 2006.
4. Cannon WC. The Way of an Investigator. Norton &Company, New York, 1945.
5. Bliss M. The Discovery of Insulin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982.
6. Meyers MA. Happy Accidents—Serendipity in Modern Medical Breakthroughs. Arcade Publishing, New York, 2007.
7. Ibid.
8. Op cit 2.
9. Op cit 6.
10. Gay LN and Carliner PE. “The prevention and treatment of motion sickness.” Johns Hopkins Medical Bulletin,
1949 84:470-87.
11. Op cit 2.
12. Op cit 6.
13. Stirling D et al. “Thalidomide—a surprising recovery.” Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association,
1997 Vol NS37(3):307-313.
14. Op cit 6.
15. Ibid.
16. Klein DF. “The loss of serendipity in psychopharmacology.” JAMA, 2008 299(9):1063-65.
17. Ibid.
Published in Regulatory Focus, December 2008. Copyright © 2008 Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society.
to pursue new ideas. Even if they did, our educational system no longer fosters the skills
needed for creativity. According to one author, current curricula completely ignore the
process of how discoveries and current concepts came to be accepted.15 There is now little
attempt to teach, or even encourage the kind of creativity and complex synthesizing of
ideas that once enabled discoverers to perform major breakthroughs.
Drastic changes in medical practice and academic medicine in the past 30 years have
led to severe constriction of a clinician’s treatment time per patient and any opportunity
for serendipitous discovery. Hospital stays are shorter, preventing longitudinal studies
with inpatients who are now regularly discharged before the effects of a new therapeutic
regimen become clear.16 In psychiatric practice, for example, insurance company require-
ments for time limits and paperwork lead to clinical practices with little time for fresh
observations and much less discovery.17 Considering all of these factors, it would appear
that serendipitous discoveries are less likely to occur in the future.
References
1. Rescher N. Luck—the Brilliant Randomness of Everyday Life. Farrar, Straus, Giroux, New York, 1995.
2. Roberts RM. Serendipity—Accidental Discoveries in Science. John Wiley &Sons, New York, 1989.
3. Bud R. Penicillin: Triumph and Tragedy. Oxford University Press, London, 2006.
4. Cannon WC. The Way of an Investigator. Norton &Company, New York, 1945.
5. Bliss M. The Discovery of Insulin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982.
6. Meyers MA. Happy Accidents—Serendipity in Modern Medical Breakthroughs. Arcade Publishing, New York, 2007.
7. Ibid.
8. Op cit 2.
9. Op cit 6.
10. Gay LN and Carliner PE. “The prevention and treatment of motion sickness.” Johns Hopkins Medical Bulletin,
1949 84:470-87.
11. Op cit 2.
12. Op cit 6.
13. Stirling D et al. “Thalidomide—a surprising recovery.” Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association,
1997 Vol NS37(3):307-313.
14. Op cit 6.
15. Ibid.
16. Klein DF. “The loss of serendipity in psychopharmacology.” JAMA, 2008 299(9):1063-65.
17. Ibid.
Published in Regulatory Focus, December 2008. Copyright © 2008 Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society.