>>11384370>>11384396I say nobel prize winner because the work that is done in medicine and wins nobel prizes is often paradigm shifting.
A lot of other work done in labs is just combinatorial in nature:
We did x for y and looked at z
Now lets do x for k,l,m,n,o.... and look at z
For example, looking at the effect of a new molecule on brain cancer cells, lung, liver, etc (over simplifying here) and look for "whatever cancer indicator they prefer"
Essentially stuff that could be done with adequate robotics, but since we aren't there yet, or universities won't purchase the equipment, require PhD students, postdocs or research assistants to do.
That work isn't paradigm shifting, or even particularly novel.
This is partly why I want to go into computational biology. Not necessarily because I think I'll produce paradigm shifts; I don't think anyone knows they will in the future produce a paradigm shift. But because I want to increase the effectiveness of research through computational drug development, and perhaps get into producing computer systems that can analyze natural language, and evaluate data, to produce and test hypotheses autonomously.
The only evidence I have that I'm above the upperbound for medicine is scoring high on the medical aptitude test (with a 100% math score) at 17 (scoring higher than my friend who started graduate medicine at cambridge when they took their aptitude test at 21), as well as other achievements at university, and the approval of professors I worked closely with, ie "this is the best x that I've seen [by a first year out of however many hundreds or thousands of previous students]"
