A somewhat odd editoral in this week's Lancet asks if science is stuck in the Middle Ages. "In medieval Europe a young man who wanted to become a craftsman would apprentice himself to a master, after which he worked for a time as a salaried journeyman, before setting up as a master himself. There was an assessment of his skill--the making of a masterpiece--and the system was rigorously overseen by a guild. If this scenario sounds familiar it is because even today it is in use the world over to train the next generation of scientists." Quoting the recent report from the US National Academies on the challenges facing science, the editorial goes on to say that (for various reasons) "the current system compares unfavourably with the medieval one".
So far so good. Although clearly derived from the medieval craftsman approach, the present system for training young scientists and for managing science is significantly different, not least because of the sheer scale of scientific endeavour, not to mention the potential profits and their effect on priorities and scientific behaviour. This is not to deny, of course, that medieval craftsmen did it just for love rather than money. Judging from their legacy, however, one suspects that quality might even have been more important to them than quantity. So why does the editorial conclude: "Perhaps it is time to move the career paths of scientists out of the Middle Ages?"
It is well known that an alarmingly high proportion of current scientific eneavour is of astoundingly low quality (just look at the published literature). Should we not then reverse the trend for scientists in academic institutions to become shareholders and board members of biotechnology enterprises — especially those that do not "place a high enough priority on diseases that affect those who are least able to pay," — and encourage a more quality and needs-driven scientific culture?
