In my opinion, science as a “systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe” (Wikipedia) is in deep and growing crisis. The principal cause is widely employing market mechanisms to regulate assessment of quality of research, publishing and administration. The market may have successes in regulation of trade and minimizing production costs, but in science led to negation of fundamental objectives and motivations. The problems are widely noticed and discussed (e.g. Allen J.Bard, Chemical & Engineering News, October 11, 2010, and discussion therein). The important distinction to be made in discussion is between science and engineering. The above definition of science (Wikipedia) addresses knowledge and understanding of phenomena. Employing science for benefit to society is a domain of engineering. In brief, engineering responds to a question ‘what’ can be done, science says ‘how’ it works. Sadly, Alfred Nobel will, devotes highly acknowledged prizes to “those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind.” It rather addresses engineering achievements as scientific discoveries affect social benefit in much longer time scale. Luckily the Nobel Committee do not strictly comply with the Nobel will and award also basic research.
Apologists of market in science argue that science, being funded by public has to provide a clear connection between taxpayer money and the funded research. If the research is of scientific (not engineering) character, it cannot translate basic research into applied technology and prove benefit to society. The findings are hard to explain in common language and the explanations are prone to shameless hyping own research and own field. Public have no chance to evaluate a true value of the research and is fed with half truth or cheat.
Growth of complexity and diversity of science resulted in it being administered by non-specialists or clerks requiring simple formal valorization criteria and quantitative measures. They base not on understanding and meritorious assessment of publications, but on so called Impact factors, that is a scientific journal measure of being frequently quoted. Even scientific bodies accept that the publications not need to be again read and evaluated if they were published in high rank journals meeting their criteria. However the outcome of reviewers reports become quite random as the editors meet rising difficulties in finding anyone agreeing to review. Typically receiving 3 reports requires asking 8-10 potential reviewers (my experience), and often those responding are young scientists with no broad interdisciplinary knowledge. Not often the approached scientists admit that they have no expertise in the subject. With large load of submissions the editors have no time even to briefly look into the manuscript and use their own judgement. They become clerks counting positive and negative reports.
Even the formal, advertised journal acceptance criteria already include market mechanisms. E.g. the Nature Communications “declines a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees due to editorial considerations such as the degree of advance provided, the breadth of potential interest to researchers and timeliness” (copy of the editorial response). The “potential interest” issue is a public popularity vote evaluated via citations. The researchers, as most people, pay most interest in making money and developing new technological base, and not many invest their time in attempts to understand phenomena. But we cannot control what we do not understand.
The journals retain their market position mostly on the basis of quotation index and the editors know that they should promote popular subjects as these will be frequently cited. The original, difficult manuscripts have little chance. All of the above market elements work together with a feedback magnifying the net effect.
The world science works as a global market partly controlled by “science engineers” who knows what directions have to be invested to receive social progress. But solutions of fundamental problems, bottlenecks of technologies, civilisation challenges often come from unexpected research directions and discoveries – science should be broadly curiosity driven. After few decades of active financing several technological problems, the progress is hard to notice. Was the money well spent ? Is the ideological funding any better than the curiosity driven ?
This global market handles now huge budget so no wonder that a lot of parasitic enterprises attempt to get a piece of the pie. We see around parasitic journals and conferences that operate with low scientific criteria, luring scientists by flattering and offering false prestige through keynote lectures, committees etc. The conferences are not backed up by a larger scientific institution but operate on strictly business basis and cover very broad range of subjects. To increase profits the costs are inflated including many attractions.
In the past, often motivation attracting young people to science was a desire to understand the world and have a chance to directly face unknown secrets of nature, experience new phenomena or revolutionize their understanding. The expected material profits did not seem to play as important role as today. Besides, capitalising a discovery distracts from science into pure business. However discoveries are rare and profits usually come from lucrative grants. The recipients may be an attractive example for some young people willing to materially profit on science. Possibly, the advice to young people given by Richard Feynman, may be already the matter of the past:
“Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn’t matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don’t think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn’t stop you from doing anything at all”.
What can be done to minimize the destructive effects of the market ? In our own field we can at least try to deliver honest meritorious assessments of works ignoring impact factors and other bibliometric measures. The assessment of an expert is by nature subjective. He/She takes responsibility for the opinion and any attempts to make it look objective by referring to popular vote is a form of scientific cowardice. In science the truth is arrived at not by popular vote but by arguments and merit.
This proposition is highly demanding and most scientific councils avoid such burden. But at this level it is often the last chance to see the real value of candidates for promotion.