Time Is Precious—Quo Vadis, Creativity?

  • Jose Luis Perez Velazquez


The previous chapter has served as an introduction of the global scenario that exists today in science and academia in general, scenario that will be further examined into its particular facets in the following chapters. Scientific research that leads to clear results relies on obtaining large numbers of experimental observations and reflecting in depth about those observations and associated theories and hypotheses. This, however, is becoming unfeasible in current times due to the lack of time and funds. The former, lack of time, in my opinion is most troublesome, because there is research that needs not much money (e.g. theoretical investigations) but all research, cheap or expensive, needs time.


  1. 1.
    B. Alberts et al., Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. PNAS 111, 5773–5777 (2014). Scholar
  2. 2.
    H.M. Jaeger, A.J. Liu (2010) Far-from-equilibrium physics: an overview. arXiv:1009.4874
  3. 3.
    R. Cabeza, L. Nyberg, Imaging cognition II: An empirical review of 275 PET and fMRI studies. J Cogn Neurosci 12(1), 1–47 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Carp, The secret lives of experiments: methods reporting in the fMRI literature. Neuroimage 63, 289–300 (2012). Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Baker, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452–454 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Munafò et al., A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 0021 (2017). Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Schooler (2011) Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature 470, 437.
  8. 8.
    S.T. Ziliak, D.N. McCloskey (2008) The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives. The University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.L. Wasserstein, N.A. Lazar, The ASA’s statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician 70(2), 129–133 (2016). Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.A.C. Sterne, G.D. Smith, Sifting the evidence: what’s wrong with significance tests? BMJ 322, 226–231 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.P.A. Ioannidis, Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2(8), e124 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.D. Vale, The value of asking questions. Mol Biol Cell 24(6), 680–682 (2013). Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Minsky, Memoir on inventing the confocal scanning microscope. Scanning 10, 128–138 (1988). Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.A.S. Kelso, D.A. Engstrøm (2006) The Complementary Nature, MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ronin InstituteNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations