Scientists in recent decades have felt increasingly compelled to oversell their research for funding
COMMENT | JEREMY J.BAUMBERG | Scientific knowledge and technological innovation, as Yuval Noah Harariemphasises in hisbookSapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, are among the key drivers of economic progress. Yet there is remarkably little reflection taking place about the state ofscience today, despite significant challenges, rootedin globalisation, the digitisation of knowledge, and the growing number of scientists.
At first glance,all of these seem to be positive trends.Globalisationconnectsscientists worldwide, enabling them to avoidduplication and facilitatingthe developmentof universal standards and best practices. The creation ofdigital databases allows for systematic mining of scientific output and offers a broader foundation for new investigations. And the rising number of scientists means that more science is being conducted, accelerating progress.
But these trends are Janus-faced. To understand why, one must recognise, first, that science is an ecosystem. Just like any other ecosystem, it is characterised by the push and pull among competing actors. Universities compete to ascend the research rankings. Scientific journals compete to publish the most relevant papers.Conferenceorganisers compete for the most distinguished speakers.Journalists compete for scoops on the most important breakthroughs. Funders compete to identify and support the research that will produce the most significant advances in terms of social impact, security, or commercial profitability.
Like in the natural world, this complex competitionenables the production of both ecosystem “goods” and “services.” Our natural ecosystems produce goods in the form of raw materials and services such as maintaining oxygen in the atmosphere, pollinating plants, cleaning air and water, and even providing us with beauty and inspiration.
Our scientific ecosystem’s goods are the independent, distilled, peer-reviewed knowledgethat drives our societies and economies forward. Its services include an improved understanding of our world and the frameworks that best support progress, enabling us to innovate and solve problems.
The scientific ecosystem also serves us in ways that are harder to articulate. It instills in us an appreciation for the beauty of mathematics, a belief in the inherent values of education, trust in the intrinsic worth of transnational intellectualcommunities, and interest in scholarly discussion.
Yet funders and governmentshave undervalued these essentialecosystem services.And the three trends mentioned above – globalisation, digitisation of knowledge, and the expanding ranks of scientists – are exacerbating the problem.
As globalisation increases competition, it also reinforces certain narratives – such as those dictating which research areas deserve the most funding. In my meetings with government officials around the world, I have seen this firsthand. They trumpet the importance of science to their countries’ futures, and then identify the areas that they “uniquely” are spearheading. The areas are usually the same.
Just as “trending”topics in the media can come to dominate public attention, trending research areas attract the vast majority of funding. Support for parallel research in the same areas reduces the efficiency of each investment, and such herding behavior by donors may even preclude some of the most significant advances, which often come as a result of combining the results of seemingly unrelated research.
The digitisation of knowledge has intensified these effects. The currency of science is the citation – when one scientist refers to another’s previously published work. With all scientific publications recorded digitally, citations can be counted instantly, allowing scientists to be ranked accordingly.
The “h-index,” for example, attempts to measure the productivity and impact of a particular scientist using citation data – and it has become a kind of currency. If a scientist’s h-index is their bitcoin – convertible through salaries and research grants – then citations are the blockchain on which it depends. Now, again, the same researchers producing the same types of research are being rewarded disproportionately, leaving less room for those with less of this quantifiable esteem.
This trend is exacerbated further by the rise in the number of scientists. Ask a room full of chemists how many colleagues they have in the world, and no one will know. Ask how many are needed, and they will look at their shoes. What is known is that the population of scientists is increasing at a faster rate than the human population as a whole.
More scientists do not mean more discoveries. What they can cause – through intensifying competition within the ecosystem –ish-indexinflation, just as printing more money can cause price inflation.
Given these trends, scientists in recent decades have felt increasingly compelled tooversell their research. And in the complex and interconnected scientific ecosystem, a solution is not easy to find. But there are some dynamics that are worth exploring.