I’ve just finished reading David Shenk’s lovely, humane, elegantly-written book about Alzheimer’s disease, The Forgetting (Anchor Books). What struck me most, professionally, was the view he gives of politics within the scientific community. It seems that the trend today is for scientists, rather than working together in an academic environment as they used to, to gear their research toward the profit sector, for pharmaceutical corporations. Crucial new medical findings are no longer freely shared, because a lot of money depends on getting the vaccine out first. And yet, counterproductive as this may sound, the scientists Shenk interviews, such as Allan Roses here, defend money as a more efficient motivator for scientific progress than academic prestige:
”I was in a situation where I was spending 50 to 60 percent of my time writing grants that never got funded,” [Roses] said of the contrast. “We argued for years about whether [the human gene] ApoE is inside neurons or not. It is in the neurons. We went to every meeting. They said, ‘It’s not in the neurons.’ We would write a grant proposal. ‘Oh, you can’t do that – it isn’t in neurons.’ No grant. So what we have done now is say, ‘Piss off. We’re just going to do it. We’re going to do it right and objectively, on the basis of the data’…. I don’t have to take the time or the people it would involve to publish it.
”Am I keeping anything from my fellow researchers around the world in Alzheimer’s disease? Hell no! All they ever did when I ever said anything was to say, ‘No, no, no.’ We would just argue it at all those scientific meetings. Now we debate in the context of very critical, highly skilled scientists who know that our viability as a team, our viability as a company, and our jobs depend on it – not whether we get it first into publication.” (pp. 188-189)
So innovative scientists, too, get their grants turned down by academics saying, “No, no, no, you can’t do that.” Who knew? The implications of this reconfigured career strategy for music are… well, I’ll let you work that out for yourself.

Recent Comments
mclaren on Ives, Caught Between Two Caricatures
Once again we get a high-octane musician slamming a composer for producing "naïve" work. And what, I ask you, is...Bob Gilmore on Ives, Caught Between Two Caricatures
Agreed. I love Ives 1, terrific piece. But I'd have to say my favourite of all the symphonies is the...M. on Ives, Caught Between Two Caricatures
Mr. Plush has already written, in his first sentence, what I would have liked to. Consider it seconded.Bill B on Ives, Caught Between Two Caricatures
You can hear it without going to it. The concert is streamed live over WQXR, as are all of...Vincent Plush on Ives, Caught Between Two Caricatures
Kyle, you have just reminded us (as if we needed reminding) why we regard you as one of the most...Steven Ledbetter on Minimalism Invented in England, It Turns Out
Sullivan did, indeed, brilliantly solve the problem set him by Gilbert's lyric, but he didn't find it easy. In fact...Paul Schleuse on Minimalism Invented in England, It Turns Out
The additive process is clearly there, but the harmony isn't really static. The alternation between D and D maj7/sus4 is...Gene on Minimalism Invented in England, It Turns Out
"Das Rheingold" opens with six minutes of tonic, not dominant. KG replies: But after six minutes of E-flat the curtain opens...Juhani Nuorvala on Minimalism Invented in England, It Turns Out
The minimalist I'm most reminded of by that Gilbert and Sullivan piece is Tom Johnson. - For additive process, there's...Ian Stewart on Minimalism Invented in England, It Turns Out
For additive precedents there is also the the folk song "Green Grow the Rushes, O". I also believe that the big...