Diagnosis

We are in a period of slowed scientific progress. Pick your metric, regardless of whichever direction you look; something is wrong with science. Currently, we have more PhDs than ever, increasing around 75% just over the past 20 years, yet researcher productivity has been declining about 5% annually. Funding for scientific research (mostly from the NIH and NSF) is at an all-time high despite an utter lack of meaningful discovery over recent years, and researchers are publishing more than ever, despite the reality that on average, publications are becoming less and less disruptive to their respective fields.

Putting the numbers aside, anecdotally speaking, there exists a lack of public trust in science, stirring parallel to the fact that we just don't seem to be seeing discoveries on the level of previous historical periods. It perhaps goes without saying, but this is incredibly problematic; scientific progress leads technological progress, and technological progress leads economic progress, and when we become macroeconomically stagnant, quality of life diminishes, things get more expensive, and the fabric of society begins to unravel.

We must examine what is wrong with science by comparing its current state to previous historical periods of progress, and subsequently build the necessary tools and infrastructure needed to get this ever-important vehicle to the future, back on track. I believe that science has become deranged due to three key issues; 1) The Institutionalization of Science, 2) Methodological Rigidity, and 3) the Abstraction of Scientific Output.

1) Science; An Ivory Tower:

1.1) Hyper-Specialization:

Nowadays, scientific research is a big industry and most labs are funded by and held within the guarded confines of large formal institutions. Research Universities, Private Companies, and Government Bodies are the big players in science, and as a result, incentives for researchers have become deranged. Labs must now conform to the demands of the centralized bodies which support their work while also competing for said funding amongst the pool of other possible labs.

In the mid-20th century when widespread institutionalization began taking place, demarcation of 'science' vs 'pseudoscience' also began. Consequently, researchers began focusing on specialized, incremental pursuits such that one's research could be easily described, and thus awarded grants from governing bodies. Other, perhaps, 'fringe' areas of science were then outcasted from scientific discourse due to their comparative 'lack of rigor' — following the logical positivist mindset which had begun to dominate the Philosophy of Science. Due to such deranged incentives, we now have a state of science where researchers must not bash into the walls of science so as to lose their funding, and subsequently questions of mysticism, religion, and the 'fringe' have been excluded from the conversation entirely — leaving us with uncharismatic labs controlled by bureaucratic constraints in order to maintain survivability.

1.2) Credentialism:

The institutionalization of science has also led to an increase in credentialism, creating significant barriers to entry into the field of research. It has become arbitrarily difficult for individuals without formal university or institutional affiliation to meaningfully contribute to the advancement of science. This systemic gatekeeping prevents the emergence of unconventional thinkers and innovators outside traditional academic and corporate structures.

In today's scientific landscape, there are no available paths for freelance visionaries of the past such as Freeman Dyson or Srinivasa Ramanujan; instead, one must navigate the rigid hierarchy of academia or the corporate world to gain access to resources and recognition. This environment fosters a conservative approach to science, where securing funding and academic positions often takes precedence over pioneering radical, new theories or challenging established paradigms.

2) The Stagnation Method:

Contemporary science has become increasingly confined by rigid methodological standards. In science, there is a particular insistence on using 'acceptable' methods, processes, and publishing channels. These arbitrary constraints not only limit the scope of inquiry but also marginalize unconventional approaches. We are taught from grade school that there is a 'scientific method' and that to perform "good science, one must adhere to" the rules set forth. From day one we are led to believe that there is a singular, reproducible track to achieving discovery. Thus, tunneling the focus of every scientist, new and old, to conformity within the predefined bounds of how one must perform 'good science'.

In our 21st-century paradigm of science, we have far too much 'good science' being performed, leading us on uncharismatic pursuits, through the adoption of 'safe' and 'approved' models, methods, and approaches. To get back to a period of radical progress, we must welcome more 'bad' science. Many of the most transformative scientists of history would not hold up to the standards of modern inquiry. Isaac Newton was an incredibly religious man who performed alchemy in his spare time, yet created the most widely used mathematical discipline ever, along with his laws of motion and gravitation. Galileo's heliocentric model confronted the incredibly well described Geocentric mathematics of Ptolemy, ultimately achieving progress not through scientific rigor, but through rhetoric, mental tricks, and argumentation. Even further; the often ridiculed field of Astrology indeed laid the foundation for the now widely accepted field of Astronomy.

We need more counter-inductive thinkers, employing unorthodox methods, in perhaps 'fringe' areas of science to challenge the existing dogma that makes up modern science. We must escape the close-sourced nature of labs that serve to benefit the bureaucracy of science and not the interested public. And we must evade the tracked, and authoritarian peer review cycle which funnels highly filtered research into the same popular publishing channels.

Throughout history, the trend of scientific progress has been much different than widespread perception has led us to believe. Historical progress has not been achieved through incremental, block-like steps, performed by rigorous scientists. Rather, the history of science has a stochastic, fluid-like character - often, in seemingly random fashion, counter-inductive thinkers have emerged with new perspectives that clashed with the accepted interpretations of the time and led us to a new understanding of reality. If the standards of modern science would have turned away Galileo, then who/what else is it keeping out?

3) Science.pdf:

The current standards of scientific publishing reduce complex, multifaceted scientific work to simplistic text-based documents, PDFs, and PowerPoint slides, confined to peer-reviewed and pay-walled journals. As mentioned earlier, scientific research is an industry shoveling in billions of dollars every year, wherein the brightest minds of academia spend unimaginable hours of work producing research that seeks to advance science, and help us better understand the universe around us. Despite this, scientific output produced by the many billions of dollars, and hours of work, is relegated to highly abstract text-based summarizations published in the same 'popular' journals.

If there is to be any trust built between the public, and science, the standards of publishing must adopt more comprehensive, and open-source processes. Over recent years, there has notably been some meaningful traction made in the direction of open scientific publishing. Many recognizable platforms for publishing, with minimal requirements have emerged, allowing individuals, and labs to publish without the constraint of peer review, or pay-walling, however, this is still not enough.

New structures for publishing must emerge — structures that capture the end-end research process and make available the raw materials, models, and data that led to producing the research being displayed. The current paradigm of publishing looks at individual documents, and studies as being singular outputs, birthed from, yet completely removed from the structure of the lab. However, the lab itself should be considered the output — all of its failed experiments, unfruitful ideas, intrapersonal communications, and spilled beakers are all critically relevant pieces of the scientific process and must be properly communicated to capture the research being done.

In Conclusion:

No scientific inquiry, however unorthodox, should be excluded from the discourse. As Paul Feyerabend famously said, "There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge." The current culture in science, which is intolerant to deviation from conventional standards, must evolve. Science is not a static entity nor should it be confined to specific institutions; it is a dynamic continuum of exploration that should be open to all curious minds.

To revolutionize science, we must foster an environment that encourages radical, open, and decentralized scientific pursuits. By developing new tools and infrastructure that allow individuals to initiate and contribute to research transparently and openly, we can circumvent the restrictive norms of traditional scientific institutions. This will enable the exploration of all ideas, no matter how unconventional, ensuring that science remains a vibrant, evolving field.

We face a stark barrier today: an opaque wall guarded against new entrants. We must dismantle this barrier and rejuvenate the landscape of scientific inquiry. Let us return to a state of progress and discovery.