ABSTRACT
Controversies between investigators can be understood in a general sense as clashes between thought styles rather than in a personal sense as one investigator being right and the other wrong. The key to understanding what underlies a controversy is the difference in the starting assumptions of the investigators involved. Biological hypotheses cannot avoid functional considerations. A reductionistic approach can elucidate the individual characteristics of a system, but a holistic approach is required to understand physiological interrelationships. The funding system is a weak link in the scientific network of the United States. The mechanism of evaluation of grant applications discourages novelty and innovation. Recognition of the de-individualizing feature of science ought to lead to an expansion of the interactions between scientists and members of other collectives. Scientists need to understand better the views of the religious and political collectives, and nonscientists need to learn how science works.
