There are so many reasons for the decline of “disruptive science”, but the redirecting of research from a quest for new knowledge to the support of political narratives is the most important one.
Over the past few months, I have been exploring the ideological capture of our scientific institutions.
I have reviewed the mainstream media’s roll is strangling rigorous scientific debate. I have explored how government agencies block access to important taxpayer-funded databases if they assert a scientist’s research may enter “forbidden” territory.
I, along with many others, have warned that the commandeering of science to push social, environmental, and corporate agendas would have a tsunami of unintended consequences. The scientific journal Nature has noted one of the most significant repercussions of ideological capture: The death of scientific innovation.
The journal recently published an analysis of a report that showed the proportion of publications that send a field in a new direction (i.e., innovation) has plummeted over the past half-century.
Data from millions of manuscripts show that, compared with the mid-twentieth century, research done in the 2000s was much more likely to incrementally push science forward than to veer off in a new direction and render previous work obsolete. Analysis of patents from 1976 to 2010 showed the same trend.
“The data suggest something is changing,” says Russell Funk, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis and a co-author of the analysis, which was published on 4 January in Nature. “You don’t have quite the same intensity of breakthrough discoveries you once had.”
I have degrees in geology and chemistry. My son is getting a degree in physics. So, for me, the graph charting the absolute plunge in physical science “disruption” is chilling.
The authors cite a variety for the reasons for the plunge. They say there are fewer researchers, for example, or that scientific progress has become more incremental.
However, a look at recent posts here and on other news analysis sites are rich in examples of how narrative science is pushed and promoted, and those whose have data and explanations that do not conform to the prevailing (and largely unscientific) narrative are maligned, demonized, and their further research is censored and unfunded.
Meanwhile, in the world of life sciences and biology, after Dr. Jay Bhattacharya argued that covid lockdowns would harm children (a claim for which there is now ample proof), Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending. This censorship of scientific research silenced a critical challenge to restrictive pandemic policies.
Additionally, the most recent release of Twitterfiles revealed that Twitter worked with government officials to silence dissenting medical views related to Covid, and one of the victims was Dr. Andrew Bostom ( a Rhode Island physician and researcher with in impressive CV ).
Bostom who was permanently suspended even though Twitter found four of his five flagged tweets not to be misinformation and the fifth flagged tweet in fact was accurate. I mentioned Dr.Bostom’s tweet in my post, Twitter Files COVID Edition: How Twitter Rigged the Covid Debate With Help From the White House:
Dr. Andrew Bostom, a Rhode Island physician, was permanently suspended from Twitter after receiving multiple strikes for “misinformation.” The suspension is an example of the free-speech-destroying level of bias in the covid review process on the platform.
32. That this tweet was not only flagged by a bot, but its violation manually affirmed by a staff member is telling of both the algorithmic and human bias at play. Bostom’s account was suspended for months and was finally restored on Christmas Day.
— David Zweig (@davidzweig) December 26, 2022
Real climate science is being hurt by an all-encompassing focus on life-essential carbon dioxide, the smearing of fossil fuels, and the total neglect of research of the impact of the oceans, volcanoes, and the Sun on the atmosphere.
The community is getting little benefit from much atmospheric research and most climate modelling, and that money should be redirected to more productive areas.
Half of “climate research” money should be spent on improving the ability of public infrastructure to survive natural disasters.
The remaining funds should be spent on real climate research – mapping the floor of the oceans, with particular reference to locating active volcanoes; and investigating how volcanism, solar variations and cycles of the sun, moon, planets and solar system impact long-term weather forecasts and future climate. This work should preferably be done by contracting private operators; and the climate models in public hands should be handed over to practising meteorologists to see if they are useful for short-term weather forecasting.
Nature is part of the problem, for promoting race-based malarkey such as articles that include statements that allow research to be nixed and information to be axed based on whether it aligns with the current social justice agenda.
[R]esearch may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics.
This race-based inanity leads to the approval of ludicrous “science” projects (Observing Whiteness in Physics) and the diversion of millions of research dollars to studies such as “Deconstructing Whiteness in Physics.”
I must acknowledge there may be many other reasons for the decline in scientific innovation.
I suspect this may be part of the cause:https://t.co/0t3VqDX51B
— neke (@neke2021506) January 5, 2023
I think everyone in academia knows why… for example the incentive structure promotes doing work confirming a previous well accepted hypothesis. As reviewers, not many want to fund a grant in their field that challenges their theory giving them $$ or accept the paper.
— Eric Brown (@ericmichbrown) January 4, 2023
Academia's become a make-work program for the credential oversupply from Universities pivoting into hedge funds to farm student loan subsidies. And now has taken the final step becoming purely a political utility.
New knowledge requires challenging orthodoxy. Good luck w that.
— satstream (@rootstrikebtc) January 6, 2023
There are so many reasons for the decline of “disruptive science,” but the redirecting of research from a quest for new knowledge to the support of political narratives is the most important—and most meaningful—one.
Question: Why is scientific innovation dying?
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) January 7, 2023
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.