“The hallmark of our age is the tension between aspirations and sluggish institutions.”
John W. Gardner, Self-Renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society 1995

Too true. The late, great Gardner should know (he died in 2002.) He was a Professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business, World War II Marine officer, President of the Carnegie Foundation, Secretary of U. S. Dept. HEW, Chair-National Urban Coalition and co-founder of Common Cause among other things. Not many are known for their nimble cultures. Sorta like, I dunno, Science?

Rupert Sheldrake is a British Biologist, botanist, author (Dogs that Know When Their Owners are Coming Home and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals), and a bit of a maverick. He has something to say about sluggish Big Science for, of course, New Scientist.

Set them Free

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin was just one of many independent researchers who, not reliant on grants or constrained by the conservative pressures of anonymous peer review, did stunningly original work. That kind of freedom and independence has become almost non-existent. These days, the kinds of research that can happen are determined by science funding committees, not the human imagination. What is more, the power in those committees is increasingly concentrated in the hands of politically adept older scientists, government officials and representatives of big business .

In 2000, a government-sponsored survey in Britain on public attitudes to science revealed that most people believed that "science is driven by business--at the end of the day it's all about money". Over three-quarters of those surveyed agreed that "it is important to have some scientists who are not linked to business". More than two-thirds thought "scientists should listen more to what ordinary people think".

He's not just a complainer, that Sheldrake... he has some interesting ideas on how to make it happen:

My proposal is that 99 percent of the research funds continue to be allocated in the usual way. But I suggest that 1 percent be spent in a way that reflects the curiosity of lay people, who pay for all publicly financed research through taxes. It would be necessary to create a separate body. One possible name would be the National Discovery Center...

Go here for a NYT article on what some leading lights, including Sheldrake, thought were some future directions of science back in January of last year.