Scientific Basis for the Support of Biomedical Science
Our project had only one goal: to demonstrate that objective, scientific techniques—instead of the present anecdotal approach—can be used to design and justify a national biomedical research policy.
KeywordsCatheter Ischemia Pneumonia Tuberculosis Penicillin
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Notes
- 1.Sherwin, C. W., and Isenson, R. S.,First Interim Report on Project Hindsight (Office of Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Washington, D.C., June 30, 1966, revised October 13,1966).Google Scholar
- 2.Shannon, J. A., 1967, in: Research in the Service of Man: Biomedical Knowledge, Development and Use, pp. 72–85 (Document 55, U.S. Senate, 90th Congress, 1st session)Google Scholar
- Visscher, M. B., 1967, in: Applied Science and Technological Progress, pp. 185–206 (National Academy of Sciences Report, Washington, D.C.)Google Scholar
- Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science (National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1968), prepared by Illinois Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- Holton, G., 1973, Grad. J. 9:397Google Scholar
- Interactions of Science and Technology in the Innovative Process: Some Case Studies (National Science Foundation Report NSF C667, Washington, D.C., 1973), prepared by Battelle LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
- Kone, E. H., and Jordan, H. J., eds., 1974, The Greatest Adventure: Basic Research That Shapes Our Lives, Rockefeller University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- 3.Of these, 70 were clinicians, 37 were basic medical scientists, and 33 were engineers, science administrators (in industry, government, or universities), or science writers.Google Scholar
- 4.Some consultants did not designate such contributions as key articles. We did, however, because we knew of a number of instances in which the final step was “inevitable” but no one seemed willing to take it (for example, vascular surgery was inevitable by 1910 but was not applied until 1939).Google Scholar
- 5.Bias could also enter into our selection of reviewers of tables. Thirty-two reviewers were physicians, surgeons, or medical or surgical specialists; ten were basic medical scientists. All were highly knowledgeable in the field that they reviewed.Google Scholar
© Plenum Press, New York 1978