America Needs a Rebirth of Science By Scott W. Atlas , Jay Bhattacharya & Martin Kulldorff
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/12/america-needs-a-rebirth-of-science/
The nation’s experience during Covid has revealed that the scientific community is not giving Americans what they need, what they deserve, and what they pay for. We must do better.
A healthy and flourishing republic requires a social and political climate that respects true scientific inquiry and exploration. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the astonishing capacity of science to produce breakthroughs such as vaccines and other drugs for the public good. At the same time, we have seen the biggest public-health fiasco in history, and the marginalization and censoring of dissident scientists. The pandemic has exposed myriad long-standing problems facing science that go far beyond a single virus.
In science, centralization has created a harmful uniformity and herd thinking that hinders the free exchange of ideas. A de facto scientific cartel system determines who receives essential research funding; who ends up published in the most prestigious and influential journals; and who are promoted to more senior positions. In many scientific fields, a small group of senior scientists — who may have an interest in their ideas not being challenged — determines who will be published and who will get the research grants. Ultimately, this system creates a highly impenetrable and shielded sphere of thinking that crowds out new ideas and true scientific debate.
For instance, the majority of U.S. infectious-disease research is funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). With Dr. Anthony Fauci as its director, infectious-disease scientists think twice before criticizing the pandemic policies advocated by Dr. Fauci. A similar situation exists in the United Kingdom, with Dr. Jeremy Farrar and the Wellcome Trust. It should not surprise us that some of the most important epidemiological research on the pandemic has come from smaller countries, including Israel, Qatar, Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland.
The solution to the current state of stifling scientific sclerosis is not an abandonment of science. Instead, science must be reformed, restored, and reinvigorated so all scientists can engage with independence and boldness in the pursuit of a never-ending horizon.
For too long, there has been a longstanding slowdown in support for challenging paradigms — a “graying” of science that has resulted in talented scientists receiving their first large grants when they are ten years older than was typical of scientists in the past. The conflict of interest between Dr. Fauci’s roles as funder and lockdown architect is merely one example of how those within existing power structures in the scientific community control which ideas are deemed valid. Those wielding power are afraid of having their views and orthodoxy overturned. Those who control the funding and the publication are often the same people, and peer review itself has shifted from controlling quality to controlling ideas.
It’s not an exaggeration to view the iron-fisted grip over the funding and publication of new scientific findings as a threat to the continuation of scientific freedom. It’s increasingly hard for ideas that challenge orthodoxy to break through. This is a recipe for a prolonged stagnation that could jeopardize the societal well-being, economic health, and security of the United States.
Not only do new ideas face an artificial and harmful barrier, but major powers within science now affix themselves to narratives before all the evidence is in. The scientific process has always been based on truth-seeking, disagreement, and the free exchange of ideas. Truth-seeking itself relies on an evidence-based process of debate free from fear of censorious ramifications. Yet now, anyone who dares to speak out against the “accepted” conclusions of America’s self-designated scientific priestly class is marginalized. Declarations of false consensus have worked as intended (to intimidate alternative views), and scientists have silenced themselves to guard their careers.
The scientific method should not result in permanent maxims. It should be a field of adventure for researchers who are always waiting for the next development and seeking further discovery. True science involves a dialectical process: One hypothesis brings forth competing ones; to settle conflicting hypotheses, research is conducted. That’s how science is supposed to work. That’s how science helps us learn. But if that process is replaced with unquestionable dogma, it can’t in good conscience be called science.
The method for evaluating scientific productivity has become dysfunctional. Scientists used to be valued for their creativity, ingenuity, and genius. Today, however, too much value is placed on perceived influence. Advancement within science depends on other scientists citing your work. The incentive to work on radical new ideas that challenge scientific orthodoxy is blunted in such a system. Since most new ideas take time to be noticed or to fail, most scientists will instead choose the safer route of incremental science. In contrast to the ethos of Silicon Valley — which encouraged entrepreneurial risk-taking and recognized that failure is essential — science today rewards conformity.
It’s vital for all members of a free society to trust science. But for that to happen, we need a rebirth of authentic science. In the face of the challenges confronting science, we are partnering with Hillsdale College to help return science to its proper form.
The Academy for Science and Freedom will educate the American people about the free exchange of scientific ideas and the proper relationship between freedom and science in the pursuit of truth. We will work for reforms in scientific publishing, funding, and promotion, in order to restore the incentives to pursue new ideas in an environment that rejects dogma and accepts debate and discussion as central.
Science must once again be seen as a vibrant method that tends toward truth but that’s always at risk of being overturned by the next discovery. Right now, the public is not getting from the scientific community what it needs, what it deserves, and what it pays for.
Scott W. Atlas, M.D., of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., of Stanford University; and Martin Kulldorff, of the Brownstone Institute, are fellows of Hillsdale College’s Academy for Science and Freedom.
Comments are closed.
