by With trust in science declining, scientists need to change how they work with the public and within the wider scientific community.
The vast majority of basic scientific research—the kind of science that pushes deeper into unknown regions and expands humanity’s knowledge—is funded by government organizations. In the United States, that usually takes the form of federal agencies such as NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy. Scientists compete for grant funding to support the employment of students and junior researchers, purchase expensive equipment, and write research papers.
Unfortunately, funding for the sciences has been falling steadily in recent years. even though increased financing spices from time to timeless money is going to basic research now, especially when measured as a fraction of all federal spending, than it has in more than half a century.
Interest and confidence in science itself is declining to fuel this reduced interest in science funding. While the public has historically had a high level of trust in scientists, that trust has been falling steadily, from a high of 75% just before the pandemic to a low today of 57%, according to Pew Research poll which took place between 25 September and 1 October.
Related: What is the difference between science and pseudoscience?
In addition, science is becoming increasingly politicized, with left-wing policymakers more likely to support science funding than right-wing politicians. The votes of those leaders largely align with the views of their constituents: Respondents who identified as Republican were significantly less likely to view scientists positively.
With that decrease in trust comes a decrease in funding, and unfortunately for scientists, the drop in funding creates dysfunction that leads to more decreased trust.
The disease spread
Declining public funding for science results in three sets of dysfunctional relationships: It affects how scientists interact with each other, with students and with the public.
Competition for grants has grown fiercer over the past decade, with scientists spending more of their time fighting it out for fewer research dollars. The average grant award rate is now under 20%, which means that researchers have to reapply year after year to get a small amount of funding, and usually not enough awards to cover the time spent applying to the cover 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. Over 3 million journal articles were published last year. The more a scientist publishes, and the more that work is cited, the more likely a scientist is to win awards and advance in their careers.
This intense pressure to publish – often summed up as “publish or die” – has led to a remarkable rise in shoddy work. Some of that is outright deliberate fraud — a deliberate distortion of the data to get a publishable result. But more often, it’s simple laziness, driven by a desire to get to paper sooner rather than later. It is also the responsibility of journal publishers to adhere to a rigorous and thorough peer review process, which is not always the case.
Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt: $38 at Amazon
Saving Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt is the culmination of Paul M. Sutter’s long career in the scientific community, both inside and outside of academia. Interweaving his own experience as an astrophysicist with broader trends he and others observe, Sutter roots the current lack of confidence in science within the scientific academic community itself. Throughout this book, Sutter reveals a community that has come to ignore the general public, is obsessed with winning grants, ignores political landmines, restricts access to the elite, and allows fraud. while they are in search of the commandments.
Along with that increased competition for funding comes more competition for jobs. Students are registering for science majors at an all-time high, with some departments seeing double or triple the number of students compared to two decades earlier. Universities love this influx of students, as they often provide federal loans to pay for their increasingly expensive educations. But there has been no commensurate growth in long-term jobs. Students go on to get doctorates, start short-term jobs and then find themselves in their early 30s without a permanent job in science. In some fields, 10 new postdoctorates are awarded for every new open position — a situation that cannot be accepted.
Finally, scientists do not mind communicating their work to the public. Public outreach is viewed by hiring, tenure, and promotion committees at best, and with derision and derision at worst. Despite the public’s desperate need to hear about the latest scientific research, scientists themselves are often the last to hear about it. And why should they? If it doesn’t help them in their career, it’s a waste of time for them.
The increase in fraudulent work, the lack of long-term career options for young new scientists, and the discouragement of science communication all contribute to a lack of interest in continued science funding, which starts the downward cycle again. Thankfully, there is a way out.
The way out
The reason for these malfunctions in science is the lack of funding. But scientists cannot expect to ask for more funding and get it automatically; the public is already becoming increasingly uneasy. So instead, scientists must work within current funding constraints and present a new face to themselves, their students, and the public. That is the way to rebuild trust, and with that increased trust comes more secure funding.
First, scientists must let go of the pressure to publish. There are already too many papers coming out for any researcher to keep up with their own field. Scientists are pretending they can measure success by publication and citation counts, but that’s just the way science is distorted. Scientists need to publish less and be given more time to develop long-term research plans.
Also, funding agencies need to offer more high-risk/high-value programs, support junior researchers over established ones, and introduce randomness into the selection process so that more researchers have the opportunity to try new, innovative ideas .
Related stories:
—From the launch of Yuri Gagarin to the present day, human spaceflight has always been political
—The era of NASA’s large space telescopes may be over
—25 space conspiracy debunked
Secondly, if we are to maintain current levels of the science student population, we must significantly reduce the number of short-term postgraduate jobs. If there are not enough permanent jobs in science, students should be trained for jobs outside of academia and allowed to retire from academic research at a young age, not after some of their most productive years have already passed own.
Finally, scientists must communicate with the public, often and directly. Science communication training should be part of every graduate program and a built-in expectation of every faculty position.
Once scientists tackle fraud by reducing the pressure to publish, reduce anxiety by being honest about career paths, and make science more transparent by working face-to-face with the public, they can start on rebuilding confidence and getting funding back and, from there, securing it. the continued survival of science for future generations.
