It also happened midway during the PhD after I saw Romeo Dallaire speak about the unbelievable genocide in Rwanda.
These crises were very different in nature. The latter was definitely an existential academic crisis. If you're not a rising Rockstar Academic, then this type of crisis strikes you at least once during the PhD. It's the "What-The-Fuck-am-I-doing-studying-some-obscure-question-that-maybe-
three-people-in-the-world-care-about-when-I-could-be-saving-the-world" crisis.
I was being generous since I included myself and my two advisors, and realistically at the time, they probably didn't give a damn.
Unfortunately, the first crisis or 'Dark Night of the Soul' has yet to end.
My panic was and is this: Is there a bias to our scientific knowledge? In other words, are we as scientists engaging in self-censorship because we are interested in studying that which will get us publications and grants? In the ideal, a scientist should be committed to obtaining objective knowledge of the world. We are supposed to be intellectuals that hold up the ideals of curiousity and skepticism. Yet we pick "safe and risk-free" questions because in one year, we know we can get a publication. It's MTV science.
So is there evidence that researchers engage in self-censorship of any sort? It turns out the answer is, yes. This recent study in PLoS Medicine showed that controversy can shape what a scientist will study.
The background to this study is fascinating because it highlights the not-so-subtle influence of religion on the practise of politics and science in the United States.
In July 2003, a Republican senator, named Patrick Toomey, proposed an amendment to the 2004 NIH appropriations bill. Essentially, the bill would rescind the funding of five NIH grants -- four of these proposed to study sexual behaviour. The amendment failed to pass in the House by TWO VOTES. Later that year, two congressional committees wanted the NIH director to explain the "medical benefit" of the grants listed in the Toomey bill plus an additional five grants. Again the majority of these studies investigated sexual behaviour. To get him to explain the validity of funding these projects, they sent a list to be reviewed by the director of the NIH. And to make a long story short, some dumbass committee staffer screwed up and sent a list (actually drawn up by a self-described conservative Christian lobbying group) of more than 250 grants by 157 different PIs. But the director still ordered a review of each NIH grant mentioned.
Ironically, the only other place that religion has such an impact on politics and science is the Middle East, specifically Iran. (Think about that one.)
The researchers of this study examined the reactions of those scientists whose grants were implicated in this political controversy. Although the NIH did defend each grant and no funding was taken away, the scientists involved engaged in self-censorship in various ways. Here is what they reported:
"About half of the sample said that they now remove potentially controversial words from their grant and a quarter reported eliminating entire topics from their research agendas. Four researchers reportedly chose to move into more secure positions entirely, either outside academia or in jobs that guaranteed salaries. About 10% of the group reported that this controversy strengthened their commitment to complete their research and disseminate it widely." Kempner (2008)
My favourite part of this study was the description of how researchers tried to "game" the system. They disguised the most controversial aspects of their research by removing potential red flag words like gay, lesbian, bisexual, sexual intercourse, anal sex, homosexual, homophobia, AIDS, bare backing, bathhouses, sex workers, needle-exchange, and harm-reduction. How many PIs do you know have "gamed" their grants using the buzz words appropriate to the discpline?
Informal constraint comes in many forms. For these researchers there was an obvious and explicit external political force motivating a change in behaviour, the religious right. I think, however, a system that rewards "highly productive members of the academic community" with grants and jobs is just as powerful a force shaping researcher behaviour.
Instead of a community of teachers and scholars where we ask creative and difficult questions that are motivated by honest curiousity, we are building a system that makes us into publication-driven Wall Street Pigmen.
Oink, oink. Maybe the world was created in seven days.
6 comments:
That's an awfully pessimistic view. Although I am I certain that many scientists do self-censor (some call is "playing-the-game"), I do not lose hope. The voice of reason can triumph depending on the political climate. Speaking of climate - climate warming has been brought to the forefront, with many scientists freely speaking-up on how their views were being suppressed, but are now being heard.
I don't think science is ever a stand-alone objective pursuit. It blends with politics (and religion). But when the time and climate is right,things can change for the better.
So even though scientists may need to play-the-game, the hope is that they're laying the foundations for future researchers that won't have to, and can one day brazenly use stem cells for example (because there will be a time when we will).
Great post, and in my opinion right on the mark. Discouraging, but true. The question is how does one maintain one's personal scientific integrity within a system that pressures you to do what is grant-worthy, rather than what is worthy of investigating.
It is at least somewhat encouraging that 10% of the researchers felt a strengthened commitment to the original goals of their research in the face of the congressional inquiry. Ten percent is better than none. It would be interesting to know what enabled that 10% to react that way, what made them different from the others - and is that something that can be encouraged, cultivated more broadly in the scientific community at large?
At least you don't have the RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) to contend with in the US (yet)!
It's depressingly true that many of my colleagues feel that we've had to make choices to either follow our curiosity and work on hard, interesting questions or write grants that get funded, get papers, and help us 'climb the ladder of success'. It's possible to do both, I have to believe that, but it's much harder than it ought to be!
I do think that most scientists self-censor, and if not, the group politics of science as a whole will end up censoring them.
I think the dichotomy is the same as in the arts: to be creative, or to make a living.
As long as scientists are deciding which of their competitors will get funded, this censorship will continue.
Until scientists are paid a steady salary regardless of what we choose to work on, there will be pressure to go where the money is and avoid controversy.
Standing up to that pressure means putting your career on the line EVERY DAY.
It's a very difficult way to live, but some people do it and win.
Other people end up driving a shuttle bus while someone else uses their construct to win a Nobel prize.
On the one hand, you only live once, and if you want to make a difference as a scientist, you have to take some risks. You could get hit by a bus, you just don't know when.
On the other hand, your one life might easily outlast your retirement savings if you're not careful.
So, to me the choice is, short and painful or long and boring?
Don't spend your life waiting for things to change. Figure out which matters more to you- security or glory- and then go for it.
Moose,
I don't think it's unrealistic. And I agree that implicitly science is not an objective pursuit. But "science" is presumed to be separate from business. In this day in age, I think it is intimately tied to the business model.
Zuska
Yes, I agree. It would be nice to know why, what factors helped them do that.
JaneB
It is nice to know that there are academics who can straddle both.
MsPhD
I was in the arts for a while and I found things a little less competitive. While the dichotomy is present in the arts - it is easier to do both - remain true to your artform but at the same time make some money. Many artists would do TV so that they CAN do theatre for example. But this was because of personal funds. It seems in science that grants have more strings attached. Although I know PIs can move money around, grants still want to know what are "the deliverables." The language used smacks of the world of business.
I think (like JaneB) there must be a balance to having to do the stuff that interests you truly and cowtoe to the funding bodies. When I figure it out - I'll let you know.
Scary, but I think that what people write grants about and what they end up studying are often not the same thing. The grants are written to appeal to whatever funding agency they're geared towards and research is done on the PI's true if tangential interests.
Post a Comment