Much of the focus in medical innovation today is on the invention step and the inventors - i.e., on who was first to state the core idea in a permanent medium. In a world where approximately every possible permutation of disease, gene, biomarker, pathways, etc. has already been uttered, this has become somewhat absurd. The societal perception of what is valuable is now almost the complete opposite of what actually is valuable in medical innovation. Coming up with a reasonable-sounding idea is today the *easiest* part of the process - in fact, there already is a nearly inexhaustible stream of such ideas available in literature. The vast majority of which never get beyond the stage of being stated. If you listen to recent medical innovators that actually delivered innovations all the way to patients, such as Dr Karikó (mRNA) and Dr Knudsen (GLP1), you will hear that the hardest part was in overcoming the obstacles that one faces after an idea is uttered - i.e. in the persistence and perseverance of the innovators to push their ideas to fruition. I wonder to what degree the lopsided perception of what is valuable is what leads to the current lopsided allocation of resources. Would we have more medicines if the highest honor for scientists would be to persist and persevere on a small set of ideas until they are conclusively proven or disproven? What would a world look like where we valued validation over invention?