What the Institute Is (Continued)

The Institute is not going to try to impress the reader by citing the credentials of its members.  One reason for that is self-preservation. The express purpose of this website is to overthrow the status quo by making the revolutionary concepts set forth in the Hypothesis available to the public.  The sad reality is that most revolutionaries end up being casualties.  Any person desiring employment in a field related to the life sciences could well be sabotaging his or her career by being associated with the heretical ideas expressed in this website.


Moreover, we would suggest that one of the barriers to scientific breakthroughs in the life sciences field is an over-reliance on credentials.  Greater importance is placed on the credentials of someone advancing an idea than to the substance of the concept itself.  In any other field of science or technology, it’s the idea that is important -- no one questions the fact that truly innovative concepts typically come from younger people who have not yet accumulated impressive resumes.  FDS itself is the reason.   The brain is one of the organs that suffers physiological deterioration as a result of FDS -- and that deterioration commences when we are in our 20s.  By the time one has invested the years necessary to build a significant scientific resume, FDS has robbed him or her of the ability to make conceptual breakthroughs.  As Albert Einstein said,  "A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so.”


The Hypothesis must stand on its own regardless of the resumes or reputations of the people who developed that knowledge.  It consists of a series of relatively simple, universally accepted propositions that have been assembled into a conceptual framework.  Anyone who puts in a sufficient amount of time and effort will be able to judge for herself whether the logic holds up.


Among the reasons why the Institute has been able to develop a proposed theory that has so many original elements is that the Institute has never sought outside funding for its research.  Most researchers are driven by the need to obtain funding.  The funding process itself stifles creativity and originality.  In order to obtain funding, a researcher needs to identify the subject matter of the research, how it ties to existing studies and the anticipated results.  It’s difficult for a researcher to follow an unexpected new trail if the researcher has told its funding source exactly what trail the researcher intends to follow. Typically a funding request is subject to peer review.  A life scientist's peers have a vested interest in the current paradigm.  Thus proposals that involve venturing outside the current paradigm are less likely to be approved for funding.