john,
i stated my opinion, best of luck.

now as far as your statement "Probably most of us have declined to a state where we are not optimistic that "big science" will find a cure soon enough to save us."

i'm not optimistic but i see some hope and a lot of potential clinical research that could use more funding.
imho we need more "big" science, not less, not easy to get anything past the BBB and to the correct part of the brain, much less quickly find enough pd"er's to run a clinical trial that requires brain surgery. one problem with phase2 trials is sample size is so small that 1 patient can skew the results and only 1 procedure can be tested, imagine if they could double the sample size? so i'm much more interested in making "big science" more productive rather than mining data for some reason to be determined later. if you are criticizing how we depend on the profit motive to do a lot of this clinical research i agree with you 100%, so i certainly don't like big pharma which i assume is what you are criticizing.
darwin at least was a taxonomist, he was highly trained at what he was doing. it was his life. that's why i call what your"re doing entertainment.