Do you remember when you were first taught the classic scientific method? Believe it or not, we were all taught these foundational principles of science way back in elementary school. Even if we didn't quite fully understand it back then, we were taught that scientific discovery is dependent upon careful observation, rigorous skepticism about what is observed, formulating hypotheses, experimentally testing these hypotheses, and then accepting or rejecting them based upon the analysis of our data. Advances in science, in other words, occur through an iterative process based upon ideas developed and tested in prior experiments. Consider what the English mathematician and scientist Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
If Sir Isaac Newton claims that his discoveries built upon the discoveries of scientists that came before him, who am I to argue? On the other hand, if advances in science depend upon a certain amount of skepticism, maybe we would be better off asking whether Newton's claim has ever been rigorously tested! Consider for just one moment what another famous scientist once claimed. The German physicist Max Planck, winner of the 1918 Nobel Prize for his early studies in quantum theory said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
A group of investigators set out to test this exact question and published their findings online for the National Bureau of Economic Research ("Does science advance one funeral at a time?"). Specifically, they examined how the death of 452 eminent or "superstar" scientists (highly funded and highly cited scientists who were often members of the National Academy of Sciences or the Institute of Medicine) altered the number of publications and funded grants by their collaborators and competitors in the years after their death. Perhaps surprisingly to Newton (but perhaps less surprising to Planck), the flow of articles by collaborators decreased precipitously (by an average of 40%) in the years following the death of a "superstar" scientist , while the number of articles published by competitors actually increased by 8%. Moreover, these articles were disproportionately likely to be highly cited and often were authored by scientists who were not previously active in the deceased superstar's field. These investigators concluded that "...outsiders are reluctant to challenge leadership within a field when the star is alive."
What exactly prevented the competitors, who were often younger scientists who were trying to start their careers from entering these fields while the "superstars" were still alive? These investigators could not definitively answer this question, but they did pose a few possibilities. Outsiders (particularly younger scientists at the beginning of their careers) may be more reluctant to challenge a luminary in the field. The younger scientists simply choose not to try to compete with the superstars. It's a well-known fact that scientists have to compete for limited funding resources, so it may be that the superstars' hold on grant funding represents a significant barrier to entry. Rather than standing on the shoulders of giants, these younger scientists stand in their shadows. Superstars have a number of established collaborations with other investigators in the field, which represents another barrier to entry.
So it seems we have more evidence to support Planck's claim rather than Newton's. The question becomes then, what should we do about the fact that the presence of a superstar can "freeze out" new entrants, which can actually prevent a field from advancing beyond the widely accepted paradigms (which are usually based upon the superstar's research)? That question is even more difficult to answer. Maybe we should pay attention to what one superstar scientist, Carl Sagan, had to say about this, when he claimed, "If we can’t think for ourselves, if we’re unwilling to question authority, then we’re just putty in the hands of those in power."
Uff! Your title, post, and closing remark resonate with me. I couldn’t agree more with one of my favorite cosmologist and dare I say, Scorpios. Speaking of Sagan, it’s his birthday today. Rhetorical question and more on barriers: what about outsiders/competitors who are not/have not been reluctant to challenge leadership and their proclaimed “superstar”? The handful, if that, who advocate and take risks for progress and change, but face other barriers (i.e., retaliation, further-outcasting, isolation, scapegoating, limited/prohibited/prevented interconnectedness with “giants”); drowning in meaningless tasks and projects that keep you silent, invalidated, in the shadows, and other negative (long-term) consequences? What about the authentic, hyper-intuitive, hyper-aware, emotionally intelligent, change-embracing, big-picture-thinkers, non-putty outsiders who see right through the “superstar” and willing to put the final nail in the coffin?
ReplyDeleteI’ll pause (tangent) here.
It is equally likely that given the nature of peer-review, the "eminent" scientist intentionally, deliberately, and for self-serving purposes quashes the academic scholarship of the younger scientists. The sheer ego and selfishness (including those competing for grants) in academic medicine is rampant. Grant funding begets grant funding. Publications beget publication. The only way to change the system is to ensure that those in power (be it journal editors or science review panels) blind themselves to eminence and instead promote and encourage younger scientists.
ReplyDelete