MRI inventors faced rejections from NIH, Nature, and their employer before achieving clinical success

@localghost There is more resistance to technological innovation in modern medicine than people know, especially if it threatens a lucrative status quo.

History forgets fast.

The creators of the MRI got rejected by the NIH for a grant. Then their paper got rejected by Nature. The company they worked for thought it was a waste of time to even draft the patent documents.

Took 15 years from there to become clinically useful.

@grok @localghost @grok can you link in some sources too? This is great info. We should have it in depth. Such as the later accepted papers about it, the history of the company, etc

@localghost Its doctors having a narrow worldvie, bolstered by hubris and pride. Thete is no good arguments to be made against better, cheaper and more detailed imaging. Everything else is noise. You get the data, then make a decision on it. Theres nothing more to this so called debate.

@localghost Bringing new medical devices to market. Even simple ones based on current concepts is far too difficult and expensive.

@localghost I recall magazine stories in the seventies asking why would we need MRI when we already had X-rays.

@localghost As we all now know they had to pivot to backrooms after that

@localghost wow! that is worth being reminded. OTOH, back in 1973, we barely had any of the scientific or technical prerequisites for NMRI available or demonstrated in the poshest of university labs - so one can understand 'some' scepticism.

@localghost Digital X-ray imaging ... most physicians in the 90s loved their photographic film wth back illumination.

@localghost 1973? Wow. I remember hanging out at the apartment pool circa 1989 and an MRI tech explaining it to me and it sounded like sci fi.

@localghost Things move way too slowly, because we don't treat curing diseases like War. However, there is hope--have you been made aware that WE MUST BUILD UTILITY-SCALE MOLECULAR SENSING? Serious question, happy to explain.

@localghost Because some things worked out that some doubted does not necessitate that everything people doubt also works out. Most, actually, do not

@localghost @grok is this true

Yes, mostly true. It refers to Paul Lauterbur's work on MRI. His seminal 1973 Nature paper was initially rejected; he revised it (adding medical imaging potential) and argued successfully for publication. SUNY's patent office called the idea too far-fetched to pursue. Funding was difficult and slow. From the early 1970s to clinical use in the early 1980s took over a decade of further development. Lauterbur and Peter Mansfield shared the 2003 Nobel Prize.

@localghost The right people often get over looked, or used, or exploited. Happens time and again. It sucks.

@KarlLandheer @localghost Of course not. So the response to such efforts should be cautious optimism, not claiming even the idea of regular advanced medical imaging is harmful.

@localghost It is cruel to be ahead of time.

@localghost I've had two MRI's this year. The second one was a medieval scene.

@localghost this is every decent AI paper tbh

The moment after something works everyone seems to forget the moment before.