For scientists, submitting a manuscript to a journal for review and waiting for excellent news about its acceptance is a decisive experience. Imagine that in the long run you receive an email similar to this one from a prestigious (but fictional) academic journal:
It sounds similar to the start of a regular positive email, with one difference: our hypothetical journal has an “Unaffiliated Researcher” section. This is devoted to the work of independent researchers who haven’t any formal academic affiliation or credentials. In this scenario, abnormal people can formally take part in the research process, even a famous gated institution that publishes peer-reviewed manuscripts.
Is this a horror movie? Or does it represent progress? How would we feel in a world where everyone can take part in a proper research endeavor? I argue that a future that democratizes research, making it more accessible for each consumption and production, will increase the variety of high-quality ideas circulating and support efforts to defend science within the face of decreasing trust at scientists.
There are many reasons to fear a very open world of experience. In my very own fields of study – computational epidemiology and disease evolution – the Covid-19 pandemic was a watershed moment for the hazards and power of uninformed opinions, disinformation and disinformation. In contrast, other pseudoscientific movements, corresponding to race science, proceed to linger, thanks partly to the dark web of imagined “scientific” discoveries, a few of which appear in dubious academic journals.
Moreover, a war on ideas is emerging that undermines the elemental value of the scientific method. This sowed doubt about the concept that expertise matters in any respect. Scholars have highlighted the important thing role that expertise has played in shaping policy throughout the pandemic. But perhaps we should always rethink our reflexive defense of credentials and make an argument in the other way: that credentials and other social cues of intelligence create unnecessary barriers between experts and society.
How would we feel in a world where everyone can take part in a proper research endeavor?
Is there an ethical obligation to promote public participation within the scientific process? One thread of reasoning stems from the proven fact that public funds (through taxes) finance much of the research around which we, scientists, construct our careers. Therefore, academic inclusion efforts often concentrate on “outreach” or citing “the broader impact of research.” These efforts include very necessary activities in schools, citizen science projects, summer research programs, prison education curricula and attempts to include scientists with Global South while publishing in prestigious journals and participating in scientific conferences.
Other efforts concentrate on data democratization. One example is the open science movement, built on the belief that scientific data – especially that generated with the support of public funds – mustn’t be a non-public good, but public property to which everyone can have free access. These efforts mix with the event of open access journals and preprint servers corresponding to arXiv AND OSF.
These initiatives emphasize that opening doors must be less about doing good and more about how to improve science. We should want access to the unexpressed scientific ideas that could be lurking within the minds of young individuals who may only be guilty of being born into poverty or in a rustic combating the results of genocide.
It isn’t difficult to imagine the disastrous consequence of this attempt at democracy. Research is already weakened by shoddy work that’s flawed, unsuitable or can’t be replicated. What’s more, a wicked recent thing movementspromoted by those that take advantage of ignorance can spread harmful disinformation and pseudoscience. Opening borders could further disrupt the science signal and thwart attempts to distinguish reality from fakery.
I argue that the present structure of gatekeepers to formal (mainly academic) research creates conditions conducive to a war on science. Much of current skilled progress in research rewards the pursuit of popular ideas, which sometimes rest on fragile foundations, leading to an abundance of half-baked science. In light of this, it could actually be said that such a disaster scenario already exists, even amongst individuals with a high level of credibility. Much of what we fear within the democratized world of research is already happening in our closed world of research.
How could trying to democratize research help? And how would it not work?
The first steps towards a democratized future could also be easier than we predict. Academic leadership positions across the country could support scientists’ efforts to create the tools needed to democratize science. Suppose a respected applied mathematician translates a knowledge science textbook into Quechua, or creates a version accessible to curious children living in Kiev, Gaza, or Kinshasa. What if a famous physicist developed an independent science platform dedicated to evaluating the unique ideas of unreliable scientists (very like the fictional journal we began with)?
Can we rigorously argue that these democratization efforts are less a real scientific contribution, as judged by a promotions and awards committee, than an original manuscript published in a prestigious journal? On what basis? Is it a view built on the lazy counterfactual that science seems to do well in practice?
Unfortunately, many researchers have built their skilled value on a questionable definition of scientific value and success in a supposed meritocracy. And nobody must be cynical enough to deny a respected person his or her rightful place – many scientists are talented and hard-working and deserve the spoils. But our belief within the meritocracy of science hides a less savory truth: exclusivity drives prestige. This fuels the narrow view shared by many within the scientific community that not everyone can participate, and that’s what makes us great.
The excellent news is that real efforts are being made to make education and revolutionary ideas available to more people. And some seem to work — or a minimum of not fail. In a particularly necessary area of funding, the National Science Foundation has formally implemented “Wider implications“element of their 1997 grant applications. This requires “the potential to benefit society and contribute to specific, desired social outcomes.” This encouraged science researchers to think in regards to the impact of their work on the world during which they operate.
The future should generate as many models for introducing society into the research paradigm as there are models for epidemic simulations.
Other innovations are happening in higher education. Under President Michael Crow, Arizona State University – widely praised for its innovation — has undertaken a mission to change its approach. One of the essential goals of the ASU project is to concentrate on availability: educate as many students as possible from diverse backgrounds and academic backgrounds. This is an example of a big research university trying something recent: trying to construct a structure that goals to include, not exclude. While this model could have its detractors, it’s hard to fault the trouble within the face of an exclusive establishment that is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.
These existing models are the very starting of the democratization of science and wouldn’t have to be perfect. The future should generate as many models for introducing society into the research paradigm as there are models for epidemic simulations. Competition between efforts could be one of the best type of social engineering experiment during which we could higher answer the query of how to close the ever-growing gap between research practice and the individuals who profit from (or are harmed by) it.
A successful effort to democratize science would demystify research endeavors and increase the number of excellent ideas we will use to explore space, govern society, cure disease, learn in regards to the history of our species, create ethical artificial intelligence tools, and way more.
Of course, such a future can be difficult to create. But research is a robust machine precisely since it tackles the challenges of the universe head-on. Few obstacles have ever been greater than making science the product of our collective genius, quite than the exclusive domain of those that have spent most of their adult lives behind the gates of money-making institutions.
