After the procurement of food, water, and shelter,
there are few things that have impacted the course of humanity more than science, especially in the time of climate change. Science showed us how to adopt structured agriculture, it informed us how to cook and store food, and it allowed us to extend our health and life expectancy dramatically. But increasingly science finds itself on a tightrope it was never meant to walk. Conventions like peer review, publication and replication give its results a reliable stamp of approval. That confidence is essential both for future research and for a public that relies on quality knowledge. Today scientists are forced to navigate structural compromises which must be addressed if that confidence can continue.
Professional science and professional journalism are two sides of the same coin. They play a similar role in a free society. They are the two means through which humans can determine the best available truth about anything. They are defined not by their product but by their process. Both science and journalism exist for the same purpose. It’s no coincidence that formalized science came into being as the seeds of democratic Liberalism were taking root in Europe. Self-government requires the best available information for citizens to make informed decisions. Without quality facts, democracy can’t function. Without faith in science, humans are at the mercy of authorities who stay in power by telling people what they want to hear, or what serves the interests of that authority. We see unsettling examples of both every day.
Criticism of science is an uncomfortable topic. The current environmental crisis will only be overcome through widespread acceptance of climate science by the public. Too many people would rather believe that climate and weather are the same, that the global changes we see with our own eyes are nothing more than cyclical fluctuations, instead of confronting the fact that our lifestyle is destroying our descendants’ habitat. The stakes couldn’t be higher. We can’t succeed without public buy-in. But that’s exactly why it’s so important that our science is as reliable as possible. And that requires taking a hard look at how it’s being done.
In 2016, Vox published the results of a wide survey of scientists, asking what could be improved and how. Eliza Barclay’s article, titled “The Problem With Science,” clearly outlined the compromises present in contemporary science in the words of the scientists themselves. Despite the number of years since its publication, the conclusions still stand. Nothing moves terribly fast in the science world, which was also one of the criticisms of the respondents.
To generalize, contemporary research takes place in a competitive environment that disincentivizes integrity, quality, and important lines of inquiry. That competition takes several forms, each toxic in its own way. Most come down to money. Funding sources are affected by politics and private-industry profit pressures. For-profit journals favor research that makes headlines and shows clear positive outcomes, leading to papers that exaggerate or skew results to show more significant conclusions. Short-term grant funding cycles discourage long-term research which can lead to some of the most important discoveries. Peer review isn’t as robust as it used to be.
Many of the suggested fixes would disrupt some fundamental practices. The internet gives us new opportunities to speed up stagnant processes and allow results to be confirmed and disseminated faster. Traditional publishing could be replaced by crowdsourced and collaborative review models. But these changes shouldn’t be entered into lightly. Ideally, those things exist to add weight and legitimacy to the work. The most prestigious journals earned their reputations because their standards were assumed to be the highest and the conclusions were therefore more reliable. The respondents in the Vox survey suggested that may not be the case anymore. However, many scientists are reluctant to entrust their work to newer approaches which may not lend the same credibility and won’t advance their careers as quickly.
Recently I interviewed Dr. Jake Berv, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan. He agrees with many of the conclusions of this article. Jake supports preprinting research to the wider community of scientists long before the work would be ready for formal publication. This is also mentioned in the Vox article, and is one example of how the review and publication cycle is being sharply questioned by the newer generation of scientists. The route to formal publication takes a long time and can be capricious. Many scientists would love to have a sanctioned, legitimated pathway for research that’s faster and puts more eyeballs on the methods and conclusions of a paper earlier. The benefit to the researcher is obvious. The lift is to make sure that whatever process evolves preserves the pedigree of knowledge so both the science community and the public can have the same confidence in it.
Scientists like Jake have a better sense of how far they can safely change things than I do. To the public, science is conducted more and more in a black box. But the concerns laid out in the Vox article are real, and at a certain point we’ll have to trust the community as a new generation of scientists try to create more effective models. This is true in general though. All old thinking is ripe for disruption, which happens these days whether we’re ready or not.
Another criticism highlighted in the article is the way science is disseminated to the public. This gets to the responsibilities of science journalists, but also the degree to which the public is educated about science in the first place. Science education is a big issue for me. If more schoolchildren were taught earlier about the philosophy and methods of science, they wouldn’t be nearly as susceptible to the voices of climate deniers and science skeptics.
Science is the birthright of Homo Sapiens. It’s one of the things that makes humans unique. For all we know, it makes us unique in the entire universe. Right now, the survival of our habitat and the stability of our cultures depends on it. We have to take it seriously and pay attention to the lessons we can learn from it. We’ve nearly allowed the clock to run out on climate change, but it’s never too late to salvage what we can. One good place to start is by ensuring that the science we’re conducting is as reliable as possible. Plenty of smart people are trying to do that. We wish them all the best.
— Dave Coulter
11/19/2023
The Lizard Brain Project is always looking for contributors. Submit essays to submissions@lizardbrainproject.com. Or feel free to leave a comment below.
Lizard Brain | Question Everything