Funding: Clarifications to Harriman

Gregory R. Harriman gregoryh at bcm.tmc.edu
Sat Jan 6 13:36:39 EST 1996


In article <96005.171130U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu>, <U27111 at uicvm.uic.edu> wrote:


Stuff deleted.

> > Nonetheless, when you look at our current knowledge, as compared
> > to only 30 years ago, significant progress has been made.
> 
> Yes and no.  That's debatable as to exactly what you are talking
> about.
> 
> For if you are talking about technology... YES
> 
> But if you are talking about treatments... not really.  In some
> cancers... it's just as barbaric as it was 30 years ago [if not
> even more so in some cases (ie. quality of life verses quantity of
> life issues)].
> 

     I think you've got it backwards here.  Science is the discovery of
knowledge, while technology is the application of knowledge.  So, if one
agrees that not much progress in the treatment of cancer has occurred over
the last 30 years, then one would have to say technology (application of
knowledge to the treatment of cancer) has not succeeded.

     On the other hand, it is obvious to anyone who has experienced the
explosion of knowledge in many areas of biomedical science over the last
30 years, that biomedical science has made significant advancements.  The
fact that such knowledge has not yet been translated successfully into
technology (ie. better treatment of cancer, etc) doesn't negate that
knowlege.  Rather, it only means that the application of such knowlegde
(ie. technology) has not advanced as fast.

Greg Harriman



More information about the Bioforum mailing list