As the coronavirus pandemic continues to haunt us, various sectors of the scientific community have sprung into action. Covid19 presents an opportunity to learn a few new things, advance knowledge and help society. The pandemic is also a chance for individual scientists to show-off and climb a few rungs up the ladder. Those two motives sit uncomfortably close to one another, not least because self-promotion in science is so heavily encouraged.Tolerating narcissism in scientists may be a small price to pay for a precious product, just like we do for celebrities and artists. But we have to question the role that self-promotion, imposed or ingrained, plays in the quality of scientific output, especially now, at a time when scientific expertise is such a hot commodity.
Calls to “follow the science” have gained traction, and these exhortations are often imbued with emotion and politics. It’s a delicate time with much at stake. If self-promotion is a strong motive – even if it’s not the prime motive – then there is a chance that scientific output will be compromised. As mentioned, the scientific community encourages self-promotion explicitly, while bemoaning a lack of public trust in science. When public distrust manifests, the response from scientists can be disappointingly dismissive. So ego-driven science can harm in two ways: first, in compromising scientific output; and second, in driving a bigger wedge between scientists and the lay public. There’s little mystery then behind the public’s disillusionment of scientists and experts; unfortunately, that wariness also transfers to a much more alarming distrust of science and expertise.
A considerable portion of science funding comes from the public coffers, so there is a duty to share the fruits of research labor with everyone, and to do so both accurately and respectfully. The open science movement is a step in the right direction, as is an increased emphasis on scientific communication. However, the ugly beast of self-promotion has sullied these noble initiatives too. In Covid19 times, pre-print servers are being flooded with studies and results pushed out to the public before any type of peer vetting. Is this rush to show off findings spurred by urgency or sincerity? Hard to tell. As I wrote in a previous blog post, one salient feature of Covid19 is its novelty; by definition, there are very few Covid19 experts. So it stands to reason that a lot of scientific output related to Covid19 right now, as of today, will have to be, or already has been: tempered, modified, retracted, back-pedalled, etc. Mask, no mask, pediatric transmission, chloroquine, remdesivir, airborne or not, prevalence, symptoms, bats, pangolins, it goes on and on. Media outlets eager to supply a hungry demand for new information have caught all the Covid19 balls tossed their way, and run home with them to the consumer. The consequence of this symbiosis between scientists, media and public has been whiplash and confusion: doing the right thing, that is, “following the science”, entails falling back on belief, heuristics and first principles, like washing your hands and avoiding crowded spaces during an epidemic.
Science is a discipline, a paradigm and a framework, a way of seeing and doing. Whatever the output, it is likely but a place-holder for the next product, more refined, accurate and precise. These aspects of science are generally taught early on, at least in some disciplines. These principles may be discarded at higher levels later on for several reasons, including self-promotion and visibility. Similarly, objectivity is a requirement when designing and undertaking a study, as well as interpreting results. But scientists are just human, weak, fleshy and prone to subjective thinking. Checks and balances are in place to some degree, but these too show cracks. What needs to be addressed now – what we can change now – is the emphasis placed on individual scientists to “raise their profile”, “sell their story” and promote themselves. This self-promotion necessitates adopting a “confident” vocabulary, deterministic and sure. And the more rigid a proclamation, the more dramatic the fallout when it leaks, breaks or fails. Is it possible then to have good science alongside self-promotion?
This post is not an attempt to elevate myself by shaming my peers – that would be just too bold. Science may attracts narcissists3, but let’s assume most do not fall in this category. The problem remains that regular, psychologically healthy scientists are encouraged by the current scientific establishment to adopt narcissism for the sake of their craft. It is a mind-boggling proposition given the nature of that very craft. And even a forced, reluctant narcissism can be damaging to science. The aim here is to highlight the difficulty of asking people to trust science (scientists), to follow its yellow brick road on the one hand, and on the other, asking scientists to market themselves, because the latter inherently demands embellishment, if not outright lying. Self-promotion requires bold statements and branding; publishing copiously and fast; being part of a “network”, which leads to cliques and parochialism within the system, which in turn inhibits the aforementioned checks and balances. And all that self-promotion detracts from the actual task at hand – the science.
Scientific findings rarely come in winner-take-all form. Remember where the yellow brick road ended; is it any wonder that the general public has taken data into its own clumsy hands? If science is the way to truth, like a river flows to the sea, then where they meet is not an estuary but a delta, with many paths and dead ends, boggy and fertile. Maybe now, with so much at stake, those with power in the scientific establishment can stop incentivizing self-promotion. It’s distasteful, encourages dishonest players and, at its most dangerous, diminishes the very power of science. This pandemic, as many have pointed out, is an opportunity to do things differently. Maybe scientists too can push back; stop selling their work short (by over-selling it, ironically) and refrain from asking the public to “follow” them in areas that are still so shrouded in uncertainty.
How does one pursue the noble goals in science with less than noble means? The problem is not discussed nearly as frequently as other quandaries are in the scientific community. But the coronavirus pandemic is like a low tide on modern life. All sorts of issues, just barely hidden before, have been uncovered. Here’s to one more.
Funk, C. (2017). Mixed messages about public trust in science. Issues in Science and Technology, 34(1), 86-88.
London, A. J., & Kimmelman, J. (2020). Against pandemic research exceptionalism. Science, 368(6490), 476-477.
Lemaitre, B. (2017). Science, narcissism and the quest for visibility. The FEBS journal, 284(6), 875-882.