Category: Issue 16

In recent years, the US has experienced a growing distrust of science and scientists, primarily influenced by prominent public figures and widespread miscommunication of science. As a scientist, witnessing this decline in trust is profoundly disheartening yet not altogether surprising; scientific research today is written and published in a way that makes it widely inaccessible to the public, either through journal subscription costs or field-specific jargon. Barriers to entry such as these prevent non-scientists from knowledgeably participating in major scientific discussions, most notably including climate change and vaccinations.

Arguably the most problematic aspect of science inaccessibility is the public’s reliance on political or famous figures to communicate significant scientific developments. Most politicians are not scientists and are therefore likely to spread either unintentional misinformation or even intentional disinformation when communicating science. One obvious solution to this problem is to recruit scientists to share their work with broad audiences. However, a few issues accompany this apparent solution: first, because public communication is not highlighted in many research-focused degree programs, communicating science to non-scientists does not come easily for many academic researchers. Furthermore, research career incentives place little emphasis on learning to convey science to such audiences. Additionally, even when scientists attempt to connect to the public, they can be thwarted simply by a lack of attention.

For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci and other scientists spoke to the nation about the science behind public health and safety measures to prevent disease spread. But, epidemiologists spent years leading up to the current pandemic warning of just such an outbreak. Ideally, communication between the public and the scientific community could have garnered support

Alternatively, suppose scientific research was made publicly available and written so the average person can understand the research methods and results. In such a scenario, the general population may be more involved, scientifically knowledgeable, and trusting of the scientific community. This could lead to greater participation in vaccination, public and political support for climate change initiatives, and better funding for critical research.

Ultimately, science is a public good that is currently not available to much of the public. While solving this problem will require systemic change, there are small things we as scientists can begin doing today. Engaging with the community and learning science communication are essential steps to making science more accessible. Including abstracts written for broad audiences and posting jargon-free research summaries in free or open access sources allows invaluable, direct public access to the scientific community. Link your publications along with an accessible description on social media and other public spaces to engage those who may not usually be exposed to science. As scientists begin to incorporate science communication into their jobs, the public will become more knowledgeable, interested, and trusting. Creating this partnership between scientists and the public is essential for a science-friendly future.

We conduct science for our advancement as a nation, its people, and ultimately for the betterment of the entire world. While issues may be controversial, either politically or scientifically, this does not mean that we should give up on expanding our horizons and working towards improving our livelihood. Science should be strategic in the sense that ongoing or potential issues should be prioritized so that our nation can conquer issues before they become unconquerable.

For example, we can look at climate change and the negative effects it has had on our society. While there are solutions trying to be made; electric cars, wind turbines, etc.; one can make the argument that true solutions to the problem are being ignored. Drawing on this example, we can use nuclear power as a solution to the issue of global warming and our reliance on fossil fuels. However, because ‘nuclear’ has become engrained with negative connotations in our society, we do not see much advancement in this field being done. Simply because this issue is controversial does not mean that it is not a necessary solution to the problems we are encountering.

For strategic science to work, we must see improvement in our policy that prioritizes looking at these ‘controversial’ issues and putting them into action. Science should be strategic because science in itself is a fluid dynamic; science is always creating new inventions, advancements, and solutions to everyday and long-term problems. Science should be strategic because our needs are constantly evolving. From power struggles, to defense, to health and wellness; science is always facing new challenges that need solutions. We want science to solve our problems, no doubt, and strategic science provides more freedom for these problems to be solved. Even if advancements fall outside of our strategy, they should be funded, as it is never known when these advancements will be needed.

Ultimately, the world we live in is not perfect, and money is not infinite. Cuts will be made to areas not deemed to be strategic. But science strategy adaptation should be continuous. Intermittent adaption presents problems, as our world is always changing and new issues arise. Strategic science must be used to tackle the problems we are currently facing, but to also ensure that the challenges of tomorrow, next week, next year, or the next decade are to be met at full speed.

The Biden administration has promised a dedicated and comprehensive reliance on science as it crafts the nation’s policies for the next few years. New sources from both sides of the political spectrum agree that the President’s selections for advisors include the nation’s preeminent thinkers in the areas of climate change, medical research, and general science. As a new national science strategy is being drafted, a similar dedication to open-mindedness and flexibility should be included. Scientific research and discovery serve many purposes.

A quick perusal of PhD literature on the topic seems to coalesce around 3 or 4 major purposes for science. First, the point of any research endeavor is to satisfy the researcher’s curiosity. Here, I would add the caveat that it can also serve to satisfy the financier’s curiosity on the subject matter. Second, exploration and explanation allow researchers to learn more about a topic, explain and observe new phenomena, and determine if further exploring or explaining (research) is necessary. Lastly, another purpose of research is application. The findings can be applied to existing technology or science or may simply be utilized in advancing the next stage research. To that end, should the conduct of science be strategic? I personally believe the strategic nature of science is inherent in the endeavor of scientific undertakings.

Albert Michelson was the first American to win a Nobel Prize in physics. After serving in the Navy for a few years after graduation from the Naval Academy, Michelson returned to Annapolis to teach in the physics department. On one sunny afternoon, Michelson decided to recreate a particular experiment with his students that aimed to provide an approximation of the speed of light. In constructing the apparatus, he found several areas in which he could improve upon the experiment. The physics department was unable to fund his experiment, but an undeterred Michelson financed most of the research personally and reached out to his father in order to scrounge up the necessary remaining funds. A few months later, he successfully determined the most accurate value for the speed of light at that time. His research enabled the subsequent research of some the greatest physicists of all time, including Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity. Michelson pursued the research because he understood the ramifications of identifying this ultimate upper limit to velocity and the impact it could have on the world of science.

It is unlikely that the discovery and refinement of the speed of the light value could be found in any science strategy from the late 19^th or early 20^th century, but some scientists allow their own strategy and curiosity to drive their research. This sort of independent thought should be incorporated into any higher-level strategy that hopes to advance society. Any successful strategy, whether it is a military, business, or otherwise, must be adaptable. Battlefield conditions can change in instant. World markets and even storefront patronage can evaporate instantly in the face of a global pandemic. Why would a “science strategy” be any different?

The federal government spends 37% of its research budget on research development, taking previously gained knowledge and turning it into new or improved products or processes. 32% of the research dollars go to basic research. This number should be encouraging for science enthusiasts everywhere. Funding basic research at such a high level shows the importance in advancing the pure scientific body of knowledge.¹ The business sector funds basic research at about 70% of what the federal government does, but doubles government spending in applied research and spends more than 650% more in development. Science is largely contextual, and if it aims to advance human society, then these proportions are likely not too far off from some theoretical idealistic spending ratio. Lastly, another approach to consider at the Congressional and agency is level is a bit more freedom for appropriations transfers and reprogramming. Let’s give the scientists the flexibility needed to execute a purer, less restricted pursuit of explaining the unknown.