A theme at this year's World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting was the perceived need to "accelerate breakthroughs in research and technology". Some of this framing was motivated by the climate emergency, some by the opportunities and challenges presented by generative artificial intelligence. Yet in various conversations, it seemed to be taken for granted that to address the world's problems, scientific research needs to move faster.
The WEF mindset resonates ( 产 生 共 鸣 ) with the Silicon Valley dictate—usually credited to Mark Zuckerberg—to move fast and break things. But what if the thing being broken is science? Or public trust?
The WEF meeting took place just a fortnight after Harvard University President Claudine Cay stepped down after complaints were made about her scholarship. Gay's troubles came on the heels of the resignation of Stanford University President Mare Tessier-Lavigne, after an internal investigation concluded that his neuroscience research had"multiple problems". In response. Gay requested corrections to several of her papers; Tessier-Lavigne requested retraction (撤回) of three of his. Although it may be impossible to determine just how widespread such problems really are, it's hard to imagine that the spectacle of high-profile scholars correcting and retracting papers has not had a negative impact on public trust in science and perhaps in experts broadly.
In recent years we've seen important papers, written by prominent scientists and published in prestigious journals, retracted because of questionable data or methods. In one interesting case, Frances H. Arnold of the California Institute of Technology, who shared the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, voluntarily retracted a paper when her lab was unable to replicate her results—but after the paper had been published. In an open apology, she stated that she was "a bit busy" when the paper was submitted and "did not do my job well". Arnold's honesty is admirable, but it raises a question: Are scholars at super competitive places really taking the time to do their work right?
The problem is not unique to the U. S. In Europe, formal research assessments—which are used to allocate future funding—have for years judged academic departments largely on the quantity of their output. Due to the fact that the existing system has created a counterincentive to advancement in science, a reform is underway urging an emphasis on quality over quantity.
Good science takes time. Nearly a century passed between biochemist Friedrich Miescher's identification of the DNA molecule and suggestion that it might be involved in inheritance and the elucidation of its double-helix structure in the 1950s. And it took just about half a century for geologist and geophysicists to accept geophysicist Alfred Wegener's idea of continental drift.
There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that scientists and other scholars are pushing results out far faster than they used to. Some of this growth is driven by more scientists and more co-authorship (papers, but it also suggests that the research world has prioritized quantity over quality. Researched may need to slow down—not speed up—if we are to produce knowledge worthy of trust.
