Here's a disturbing quote from "Peter Duesberg" from his book "Inventing the AIDS Virus", about the current state of medical research in this country.[usa]

"The result have been predictable. When the American Association for the Advancement of Science was established in 1848, it had 461 scientist as members. It then reached 36,000 during World War II and already passed 100,000 during the 1960's. Today it boasts some 135,000 members and is only one of the many growing sciences associations. The National Academy of Sciences, in which membership even today is a unique honor reserved for a few scientist, started in 1893, with 50 members. Those ranks swelled past 600 by the mid-1960's and now stands at 1650. The total number of science doctorates awarded each year has increased from under 6,000 in 1960 to nearly 17,000 in 1979. By the mid-1980's the ranks of Ph.D's and M.D's working in science or engineering had swelled to 400,000, a figure that for decades has grown much faster than national employment. As a result, "Of every eight scientist who ever lived [in the history of the world], seven are alive today [in 1969]",similar statistics would hold today. nor has the pressure for further expansion abated until very recently, as evidenced in a 1990 policy statement of the Association of American Universities referring to an "Impending Ph.D. shortage. Only in October 1995 did "Science" for the first time begin to worry about the imminent American Ph.D glut."

"Yet we cannot find among them the eight modern Galileos, Plancks, Einstiens, Kochs, Pasteurs, or Mendels that these statistics predict. increasing numbers of scientist means many more papers published in scientific journals, with the publish-or-perish stakes rising constantly. According to one summary, "The first scientific journal..began publication in 1665. By 1800 there were 100 journals; by 1900, 10,000 journals; today [1969}, over 100,000." by 1986, an unreadable total of nearly 140,000 papers were being published each year just by U.S scientist, about one-third of the world total."

"Such overgrowth in scientific ranks produces regression to the mean. Competition among large numbers of scientist for one or few central sources of funding restricts freedom of thought and action to a mean that appeals to the majority. The scientist who is very productive, most able to sell research, and is well liked for not offending his peers with new hypothesis and ideas is selected by his peers for funding. The eccentric, "absent-minded professor" with "crazy" ideas has been replaced by a new breed of scientist, more like a "yuppie" executive than the quirky genius  of old academia. These peers cannot afford a nonconformist, or unpredictable, thinker because every new, alternative hypothesis is a potential threat to their own line of research.

Albert Einstein would not get funded for his work by the peer review system, and Linus Pauling did not ( for his work on Vitamin C and Cancer even though he received two Nobel prizes). The only benefit of the numerous cascades of competitive test and reviews set up by peer review is the elimination of unsophisticated charlatans and real incompetence. In sum, the review of too many by too many achieves but one result with certainty: regression to the mean. It guarantees first-rate mediocrity. As these armies of new scientist flood the peer review system, they even act to suppress any remaining dissension by the few remaining thoughtful researchers.

Peer review, after all, can never check the accuracy of experimental data; it can only censor unacceptable interpretations. A scientist's grants, publications, positions, awards and even invitations to conferences are entirely controlled by his competitors. As in any other profession, no scientist welcomes being out-competed or having his pet idea disproved by a colleague. Former Science editor Dr. Philip Abelson presciently described the pressures against dissenters who raise questions publicly:

(Skipped)

Few scientist are any longer willing to question, even privately, the consensus views in any field whatsoever. The successful researcher-the one who receives the biggest grants, the best career positions, the most prestigious prizes, the greatest number of published papers- is the one who generates the most data and the least controversy. The transition from small to big to mega-science has created an establishment of skilled technicians but mediocre scientist, who have abandoned real scientific interpretation and who even equate their experiments with science itself. They pride themselves on molding data to fit popular scientific belief, or perhaps in adding non-threatening discoveries, but when someone strays outsides accepted boundaries to ask questions of a more fundamental nature, the majority of researchers close ranks to protect their consensus beliefs."