"Much of outcomes research is a systematic attempt to exploit what is known and make it better"
About this Quote
Outcomes research, in Kevin Kelly's framing, isn't a moonshot; it's a disciplined hustle. The line quietly demotes the romance of discovery and elevates the grind of iteration. "Systematic attempt" signals bureaucracy, protocols, checklists - the unsexy machinery that turns hunches into repeatable gains. "Exploit" is the tell: a deliberately prickly verb that borrows from tech and capitalism, where value comes from squeezing more performance out of existing assets. In a health and policy context, it also hints at the moral tension of optimization: who benefits when we "make it better", and who gets measured out of the story?
Kelly's intent reads like a corrective to the myth that progress only happens through breakthroughs. Outcomes research lives in the margins between what we already know works and what actually happens in real-world settings: messy patients, imperfect adherence, unequal access, institutional inertia. The quote's subtext is impatience with novelty for novelty's sake. It's a vote for pragmatism, for translation over invention, for the kind of evidence that changes guidelines, budgets, and workflows rather than headlines.
As an editor - and a longtime observer of systems and tools - Kelly is also defending a particular epistemology: knowledge as something you ship, monitor, and patch. Outcomes research becomes less about proving a point than about engineering reality, using measurement as leverage. The sting of the sentence is that it treats improvement as an applied craft, not a moral victory: if you want better results, stop worshipping ideas and start exploiting the ones that survive contact with the world.
Kelly's intent reads like a corrective to the myth that progress only happens through breakthroughs. Outcomes research lives in the margins between what we already know works and what actually happens in real-world settings: messy patients, imperfect adherence, unequal access, institutional inertia. The quote's subtext is impatience with novelty for novelty's sake. It's a vote for pragmatism, for translation over invention, for the kind of evidence that changes guidelines, budgets, and workflows rather than headlines.
As an editor - and a longtime observer of systems and tools - Kelly is also defending a particular epistemology: knowledge as something you ship, monitor, and patch. Outcomes research becomes less about proving a point than about engineering reality, using measurement as leverage. The sting of the sentence is that it treats improvement as an applied craft, not a moral victory: if you want better results, stop worshipping ideas and start exploiting the ones that survive contact with the world.
Quote Details
| Topic | Knowledge |
|---|
More Quotes by Kevin
Add to List




