In an age of declining trust in science, scientists need to change the way they work with the public and the broader scientific community.
The vast majority of basic scientific research (the type of science that goes deeper into unknown regions and expands humanity’s knowledge) is funded by government organizations. In the United States, this often takes the form of federal agencies such as: NASA, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Energy. Scientists compete for grant funding to support the recruitment of students and young researchers, purchase expensive equipment, and write research papers.
Unfortunately, funding for the sciences has been decreasing steadily over the last few decades. while there is occasional spikes of increased fundingThere is now less money going to basic research than it has in more than half a century, especially when measured as a fraction of all federal spending.
Fueling this declining interest in science funding is declining interest in and trust in science itself. While scientists have historically enjoyed a high level of trust among the public, that trust has been steadily declining, from a high of 75% just before the pandemic to today’s low of 57%, according to one study. Pew Research survey It was held between 25 September and 1 October.
Relating to: What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?
Moreover, science is becoming increasingly politicized, as left-leaning policymakers are more likely to support science funding than right-leaning politicians. These leaders’ votes mostly aligned with the views of their constituents: Respondents who identified as Republicans were much less likely to view scientists favorably.
This decline in trust leads to a decline in funding, and unfortunately for scientists, this decline in funding creates dysfunctions that lead to further declines in trust.
spreading disease
The decline in public funding for science leads to three types of dysfunctional relationships: It affects how scientists interact with each other, with students, and with the public.
Competition for grants has become fiercer in the last decade; scientists were spending most of their time fighting for less research funding. The typical grantmaking rate is currently below 20%; This means that researchers have to re-apply every year to obtain even a small amount of funding; awards are often 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 professional opportunities, scientists encourage each other to publish; a lot. More than 3 million journal articles were published last year. The more a scientist publishes and the more that work is cited, the more likely that scientist is to win awards and advance their career.
This intense pressure to publish, often summarized as “publish or perish,” has led to a dramatic increase in poor quality work. Some of these are clearly intentional fraud; intentional distortion of data to obtain a publishable result. But most of the time, this is simple laziness caused by the desire to get a newspaper out as soon as possible. It is also the responsibility of journal publishers to comply with a rigorous and comprehensive peer review process, but this is not always the case.
Saving Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt: $38 on Amazon
Saving 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 academia. Combining his own experiences as an astrophysicist with broader trends observed by himself and others, Sutter locates the root of the current distrust of science in the academic science community itself. Throughout this book, Sutter reveals a society that ignores broad public opinion, is obsessed with winning donations, ignores political landmines, limits entry for minorities, and allows fraud in pursuit of notoriety. View Opportunity
Along with the increasing competition for funding, business competition is also increasing. Students are enrolling in science majors in record numbers; some departments have two or three times as many students as there were twenty years ago. Universities love this glut of students because they often bring in federal loans to pay for their increasingly expensive educations. However, there is no proportionate growth in long-term positions. Students go on to get PhDs, start short-term positions, and then find themselves in their early 30s without a permanent position in science. In some fields, 10 new PhDs are given for every new vacancy, and this is an untenable situation.
Finally, scientists are prevented from making their work public. Hiring, tenure, and promotion committees view public outreach with neutrality at best, and with ridicule and disdain at worst. Despite the critical need for the public to be informed about the latest scientific research, scientists are often the last to do so. And why should they? If this doesn’t help them in their career, it’s a waste of their time.
The increase in fraudulent business, the lack of long-term career options for budding young scientists, and the disincentive of science communication contribute to the decline in interest in permanent science funding, restarting the downward cycle. Fortunately, there is a way out.
Exit
Lack of funding causes these dysfunctions in science. But scientists cannot ask for more funding and expect to receive it automatically; public opinion is becoming increasingly frustrated. Therefore, scientists must instead work within existing funding constraints and present a new face to themselves, their students, and the public. This is the way to rebuild trust, and with increased trust comes safer financing.
First, scientists need to be freed from the pressure to publish. There are already too many articles coming out for any researcher to keep up with in his or her field. Scientists claim they can measure success by publication and citation counts, but this only distorts the way science is done. Scientists need to publish less and be given more time to develop long-term research plans.
However, funding agencies need to offer more high-risk/high-reward programs, favor young researchers over established researchers, and introduce randomness into the selection process so that more researchers have the chance to try new, innovative ideas.
Related Stories:
—From Yuri Gagarin’s launch to the present, human spaceflight has always been political
—The era of large NASA space telescopes may be coming to an end
—25 space conspiracies debunked
Second, if we are to maintain current science student population levels, we need to greatly reduce the number of short-term graduate positions. If there are not enough permanent positions in science, students should be trained for positions outside academia and allowed to leave academic research while they are still young, rather than after some of their most productive years have already been spent.
Finally, scientists should communicate frequently and directly with the public. Science communication training should be a part of every graduate program and an established expectation of every faculty position.
Once scientists combat fraud by reducing pressure to publish, reducing frustration by being honest about their career paths, and making science more personal by working face-to-face with the public, they can begin to rebuild trust and regain funding, and from there the continued survival of science for future generations.