by In an era of declining trust in science, scientists must change the way they work with the public and within the broader scientific community.
The vast majority of fundamental scientific research (the type of science that delves ever deeper into uncharted regions and expands humanity’s knowledge) is funded by government organizations. In the United States, that typically takes the form of federal agencies such as POT, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy. Scientists compete for grants to support the recruitment of students and young researchers, purchase expensive equipment, and write research papers.
Unfortunately, funding for the sciences has been steadily declining over the past few decades. while there is occasional spikes of increased fundingLess money is going to basic research now, especially when measured as a fraction of all federal spending, than in more than half a century.
Fueling this declining interest in science funding is declining interest and confidence in science itself. While scientists have historically enjoyed a high level of trust among the public, that trust has been steadily falling, from a high of 75% just before the pandemic to a current low of 57%, according to a Pew Research Survey held between September 25 and October 1.
Related: What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?
What’s more, science is becoming increasingly politicized, with left-wing policymakers more likely than right-wing politicians to support funding science. Those leaders’ votes mostly align with the views of their constituents: Respondents who identified as Republicans were much less likely to view scientists positively.
That decline in trust leads to a decline in funding, and unfortunately for scientists, that drop in funding creates dysfunctions that lead to even further reduced trust.
The disease that spreads
A reduction in public funding for science leads to three sets of dysfunctional relationships: It affects the way scientists interact with each other, with students, and with the public.
Competition for grants has become increasingly fierce over the past decade, with scientists spending more time fighting for fewer research dollars. The typical grant award rate is now below 20%, meaning researchers have to reapply year after year to get even a small amount of funding, and the grants are typically not even enough to cover the time spent applying for grants in the first place.
To judge scientists in this competition for grants, awards, and career opportunities, scientists encourage each other to publish, and publish a lot. Last year, more than 3 million articles were published in magazines. The more a scientist publishes and the more his work is cited, the more likely he is to win awards and advance his career.
This intense pressure to publish, often summarized as “publish or perish,” has led to a surprising increase in shoddy work. Some of it is downright intentional fraud: a deliberate distortion of data to obtain a publishable result. But more often than not, it is simple laziness, driven by the desire to publish an article sooner rather than later. It is also the responsibility of journal editors to comply with a rigorous and thorough peer review process, which is not always the case.
Rescuing science: restoring trust in an era of doubt: $38 on Amazon
Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt is the product of Paul M. Sutter’s long career in the scientific community, both inside and outside of academia. By interweaving his own experiences as an astrophysicist with broader trends observed by himself and others, Sutter roots the current distrust of science within the academic scientific community itself. Throughout this book, Sutter reveals a community that has come to ignore the general public, is obsessed with obtaining grants, ignores political landmines, limits the entry of minorities, and allows fraud in the pursuit of notoriety.View offer
Along with that increased competition for funding comes increased competition for jobs. Students are enrolling in science majors in record numbers, with some departments seeing student numbers doubling or tripling compared to two decades earlier. Colleges love this glut of students because they often take out federal loans to pay for their increasingly expensive education. However, there is no proportional growth in long-term positions. Students earn PhDs, start short-term positions, and then find themselves in their mid-30s without a permanent position in science. In some fields, 10 new doctorates are awarded for every new vacancy, an unsustainable situation.
Finally, scientists are discouraged from communicating their work to the public. Hiring, tenure, and promotion committees view public disclosure neutrally at best and with derision and contempt at worst. Despite the critical need for the public to learn about the latest scientific research, scientists themselves are often the last to do so. And why should they? If it doesn’t help them in their career, it’s a waste of their time.
The rise in fraudulent work, the lack of long-term career options for young budding scientists, and the discouragement of scientific communication all contribute to the lack of interest in continuing scientific funding, starting the downward cycle again. Fortunately, there is a way out.
The way out
The lack of funding is causing these dysfunctions within science. But scientists can’t expect to simply ask for more funding and automatically get it; The public is already increasingly disillusioned. Scientists must therefore work within current funding constraints and present a new face to themselves, to their students, and to the public. That is the way to rebuild trust, and with greater trust comes more secure financing.
First, scientists must free themselves from the pressure to publish. There are already too many papers being published for any researcher to keep up with their own field. Scientists pretend they can measure success by counting publications and citations, but this is simply distorting the way science is done. Scientists need to publish less and have more time to develop long-term research plans.
On top of that, funding agencies should offer more high-risk, high-reward programs, favor young researchers over established ones, and introduce randomness into the selection process so that more researchers have the opportunity to try new and innovative ideas. .
Related stories:
—From the launch of Yuri Gagarin until today, human space flights have always been political
—The era of NASA’s large space telescopes may be coming to an end
—25 debunked space conspiracies
Secondly, if we want to maintain current science student population levels, we must drastically reduce the number of short-term graduate positions. If there are not enough permanent positions in science, then students should be trained for positions outside academia and allowed to leave academic research while they are still young, not after some of their most productive years have passed.
Finally, scientists must communicate with the public, frequently and directly. Scientific communication training should be part of every graduate program and an expectation built into every teaching position.
Once scientists combat fraud by reducing pressure to publish, reduce disappointment by being honest about their career paths, and make science more enjoyable by working face-to-face with the public, they can begin to rebuild trust and regain funding. and, from there, ensure the continued survival of science for generations to come.
