Systemic flaws that are undermining good science
Everyone likes to be right. But, sometimes I really wish I was wrong, particularly about problems I see in the world. I wish I was wrong about science being broken. Some of these issues I discuss in the final chapter of Condensed Matter Physics: A Very Short Introduction, due to the relevance of these problems to the future of the field.
Similar concerns were discussed with greater clarity, way back in 2014, by four scientists who are much more experienced and distinguished than I am.
Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flawsPositions the different authors have held include President of the US Academy of Sciences, President of Princeton University, and Director of the National Institutes of Health.
Although the article focuses on biomedical research I think the three words "medicine, biomedical, and biology" could be replaced respectively with "technology, materials science, and condensed matter physics" almost everywhere in the article.
Here are a few quotes.
The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession—and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work. This is a recipe for long-term decline, and the problems cannot be solved with simplistic approaches. Instead, it is time to confront the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical research ecosystem.
... the remarkable outpouring of innovative research from American laboratories—high-throughput DNA sequencing, sophisticated imaging, structural biology, designer chemistry, and computational biology—has led to impressive advances in medicine and fueled a vibrant pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector. In the context of such progress, it is remarkable that even the most successful scientists and most promising trainees are increasingly pessimistic about the future of their chosen career.
... hypercompetition for the resources and positions that are required to conduct science suppresses the creativity, cooperation, risk-taking, and original thinking required to make fundamental discoveries.
The system now favors those who can guarantee results rather than those with potentially path-breaking ideas that, by definition, cannot promise success. Young investigators are discouraged from departing too far from their postdoctoral work, when they should instead be posing new questions and inventing new approaches. Seasoned investigators are inclined to stick to their tried-and-true formulas for success rather than explore new fields.
One manifestation of this shift to short-term thinking is the inflated value that is now accorded to studies that claim a close link to medical practice. Human biology has always been a central part of the US biomedical effort... Many surprising discoveries, powerful research tools, and important medical benefits have arisen from efforts to decipher complex biological phenomena in model organisms. In a climate that discourages such work by emphasizing short-term goals, scientific progress will inevitably be slowed, and revolutionary findings will be deferred.
As competition for jobs and promotions increases, the inflated value given to publishing in a small number of so-called “high impact” journals has put pressure on authors to rush into print, cut corners, exaggerate their findings, and overstate the significance of their work.
The development of original ideas that lead to important scientific discoveries takes time for thinking, reading, and talking with peers. Today, time for reflection is a disappearing luxury for the scientific community.
...administrative tasks are taking up an ever-increasing fraction of the day and present serious obstacles to concentration on the scientific mission itself.
The following is particularly true of luxury journals.
Professional editors are increasingly serving in roles played in the past by working scientists and can undermine the enterprise when they base judgments about publication on newsworthiness rather than scientific quality.
Even after they have landed a research position in academia or research institutes, new investigators wait an average of 4–5 y to receive federal funding for their work compared with 1 y in 1980 (2). Two stark statistics tell much of the tale—the average age at which PhD recipients assume their first tenure-track job is 37 y, and they are approaching 42 y when they are awarded their first NIH grant.
Although it varies across fields and individuals, I get the impression that most scientists do their best work in the rough age range of 35-45. Currently, people are spending most of these years looking for a permanent job and then applying for grants, rather than actually doing science.
The graph below shows just how much the system changed in just thirty years. NIH grants became "gentrified". In different words, all the grants now go to "old farts" doing the same old thing, rather than to "young turks" who want to try new things and have a real impact.
Percentage of NIH R01 Principal Investigators aged 36 and younger and aged 66 and older, 1980–2010
Interesting (and depressing) to reread this now in light of recent difficulties in recruiting postdocs, too
ReplyDelete