Scientific World's Low Tolerance For Controversy

The process by which research is supported is under continuous scrutiny, which is a good thing, because it means that those responsible for policy-making do care. It is also the topic utmost on the minds of scientists. For example, the National Institutes of Health recently conducted a roundtable discussion on many diverse aspects of the funding process (FASEB Newsletter, August/September 1994, page 4). And the congressional General Accounting Office this year released its findings on the peer-review system, concluding that it appears to be working reasonably well (E. Marshall, Science, 265:86, 1994). Among scientists, Joachim Messing, in his excellent commentary (The Scientist, June 27, 1994, page 13), made the case for supporting many small, rather than a few large, projects. Some excellent suggestions on improvements have also been proposed by Jose M. Musacchio, though he, too, refrains from suggesting major changes in the peer-review system (FASEB Journal, 8:679-83, 1994). Of all the information recently brought out on sponsored research, one fact is truly alarming. This is the decrease in the number of young scientists who apply for grants. According to a new report by the National Research Council (NRC), applications for National Institutes of Health funding from researchers under 36 years of age declined about 55 percent between 1985 and 1993 (The Funding of Young Investigators in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1994). If this trend continues, it will lead to the decline, if not the extinction, of academic research in the United States. The NRC study found that young investigators' success rate in obtaining funds "was lower than that of many age groups--a new and special disadvantage." I want to propose the thesis that this is hardly a coincidence: Younger investigators might have a lower success rate than older and established investigators exactly because of their ability to approach problems in a new and original viewpoint--the very qualities that form the basis of progress in science. When I started to observe the scientific scene, about 30 years ago, controversy was viewed as an integral part of progress, a process in which ideas and facts are sorted out and paradigms are shaped. For several years I regularly anticipated the discussions between Peter Mitchell, who presented arguments for the chemiosmotic mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation, and his opponents, who vigorously argued against it, at various meetings of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Those arguments were exciting. The atmosphere was electrifying, and I felt that I was part of an endeavor that was not only stimulating but also open, in which the best arguments and facts eventually would win. I no longer feel this way. Controversy is no longer viewed as the warf and woof of the fabric of science. On the contrary, it seems to be perceived by the powers that be as a potential source of embarrassment, which might create problems for the public image of science. As reported in a recent article on grantsmanship (A.S. Moffat, Science, 265:1921, 1994): "The most challenging part of developing a research proposal . . . is to find a balance between something sure and something new." However, the message being sent to conveyors of the new is that not only should their work have the assurance that its support does not involve risks--namely, it will result in X number of publications--but also that it should be in line with, rather than challenge, existing views. Young investigators (and some nave, incorrigible, old investigators) might not have learned the importance of staying in the "mainstream"--which might contribute to their lower success rate. However, the way young scientists fare is the way the future of science fares. In order to arrest this trend of decline in successful young applicants, either they should be taken out of the present peer-review system and their applications considered under a specifically designated new category, or the powers that be need to reevaluate the type of research that is funded. The current emphasis on "mainstream" thinking, along with discouragement of dissent and innovation, ultimately stifles--if not entirely paralyzes--progress in science. Naomi Kraus is a professor in the department of physiology and cell biology at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

Scientific World's Low Tolerance For Controversy

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of