After the Fall: What’s Next for Science Policies?

Why the Next Generation Must Lead the Future of American Science

Let alone the bad news for science over the past few months, even just today’s paper makes frightening reading. Huge numbers of grants cancelled or delayed with little understanding of the importance of any given piece of research as well as the whole system. A new executive order that not only allows but virtually requires the politicization of federal research by calling for political appointees to determine what research results will be shared with the public and how. Very active recruiting efforts by China and the EU to lure American scientists away. And a wholesale attack on the research university system that is the infrastructure, along with federal agencies and philanthropy that has made American science great for decades. It is overwhelmingly depressing. Even if we know great science is still happening, it is hard to look ahead.

But that’s just what the science community must do. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste ( Winston Churchill but also Paul Romer)

Who should lead?

Our current system for supporting scientific training and research as well as much of the application of science was created during World War II led by the efforts of Vannevar Bush to build up American leadership in science as well as defense. While that system has indeed led to American science excellence for the past 75 years, that is not to say it is the only system that can or should continue to advance science. And it is 75 years old. All our most senior scientists (myself included) have grown up within that system and it is natural to try to recreate what we know from our own experience. But is that the right path? And are the senior scientists the ones to lead in a post-Trump reconstruction?

Alternatively, a new generation of science policy leaders can take the reins and design the direction, function, and structure of the American science enterprise for the next decades. That isn’t to say we scientists of a certain (advanced) age should play no role, but perhaps as a sounding board or as advisors. But decisions about the shape of the science enterprise—and what the community should advocate for—should be made by those who will build their careers within it.

The challenge

The well-developed and historically effective system of public–private partnerships in science—essential for informing policy, advancing public health and safety, supporting environmental sustainability, and driving economic growth—is now being degraded or dismantled in many areas. So how should a new system be built?

A conventional approach would start with a gap analysis of some kind. That makes sense, but not if the gap analysis itself consumes all the attention and energy for a protracted period. As with any review, gaps should be identified—but if we, as scientists, try to identify and reach consensus on every gap, we may never move forward in building a new system.

My recommendation is to choose a relatively small number of features of a new system, and features of the current system to retain, and design a path going forward around those features. It is important to recognize that the ultimate decisions on structure, function, and funding will be made politically, not by scientists. That means by public, private sector and political entities. Too much detail or too many items in a wish list make understanding impossible for advocacy purposes and challenging to reach agreement in the wider body politic.

A leadership team of the next generation of science leaders should design the process. The team should be drawn from organizations that can help develop and support the advocacy campaign. This isn’t about selecting the “best” scientists, but the best leaders for the future. Those who can carry the message and rally others to join the effort.

Some Suggested Issues for consideration

• In the public eye, our current system was often focused on elite institutions and individuals, even though the work was much more broadly based. That led to significant inherent biases and blind spots, as well as vulnerabilities to the kinds of attacks we see now. In my mind, a new system would embrace diversity in its true sense (not the corrupted concept the Trump Administration is attacking). We need diversity to use the WHOLE talent pool. The WHOLE infrastructure of institutions and communities. That means dealing head-on with inequity in funding opportunities and the difficulties new researchers and ideas have in breaking through. Training, funding, and dissemination need to be more widely shared to grapple with new challenges for science.

• Political interference in science may be reaching its height under the current administration. A new system would find better ways to ensure that scientists/researchers can do their work and share their results based on the quality and weight of the evidence, not its political salience. That means institutional support for scientific integrity, building a public case as well, so that the broader body politic demands the end of political interference in science.

• Science will increasingly be funded from public, private, and philanthropic sources. The emergence of a new system needs to acknowledge and recognize these different sources that support and foster those opportunities for all science. Also required are mechanisms for continuation of funding in times of emergency that don’t simply rely primarily on government stepping up.

• Science has driven great prosperity and great advances in many areas. But the benefits of those advances are grossly inequitable for many communities, repeatedly, over a long period of time. That has been true in virtually all areas of science. A new system needs to recognize the inequity in benefits of scientific research and construct a dedicated means of making equity part of the progress of scientific work and the policy outcomes it leads to.

• Too often and for much of its history, the existing system for science has paid short shrift to science communication to a broader public. In caricature, it was publish and let them figure it out. That just doesn’t work anymore if it ever did. Science communication must be part of the process from the outset, not left as an afterthought. More training opportunities for scientists to learn how to communicate with the public about the impact and importance of the research they are doing must be included in training as well as in the practice of science.

Make a Start!

Regardless of whether the ideas above are ultimately part of the process for rebuilding the American science enterprise, it is important to get started now. I don’t believe we can wait until the Trump Administration goes away. Or even does further damage. The creation of a campaign for the next generation of science is too important. Though it’s a very depressing time, the community must quickly coalesce behind the next generation of science leaders to begin the rebuilding process.

That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!

If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!

If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:

If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com