The capitalism of science
Did you hear that Venus might have or have had sulfur-breathing life on it’s 442 ° C surface? Imagine! Life on Venus, the sexiest of planets. Now that’s attention-grabbing science. But in fact, a scientist would likely pause, read the findings, roll her eyes and stew in scorn at the overblown news; pride she did no such thing herself; and concomitant regret that she did not. It was phosphine, not fossils, that they found on Venus. So why the misleading headlines about life on Venus?
When most people think of science, they think of lofty ideals and motivations, perhaps the call of curiosity and wonder at the unknown. Science is known to be hard and its practitioners, pursuers of truth, are thought to be honest. We expect scientists to, if necessary, espouse a truth over their own personal desires. Capitalism, on the other hand, would seek to maximize profit. And this maximization demands corner-cutting, increasing sales (with better products or advertising or both) and lowering costs (with technology or iffy labor practices or both). So we can safely say that capitalism and science are generally at odds with one another. Simply put, not only is it unseemly to use capitalist motives and methods to drive science, but, more importantly, such an outlook increases the likelihood of bad science.
But science has taken on a capitalist core. Universities have media and press departments to promote and publicize their research, like a new soft drink. The process of vulgarizing science is already prone to error, but the added urgency of capitalist science increases the odds of sloppiness (speed-accuracy trade-off is a thing!). The scientist herself needs to carefully curate an image to promote her “output”, without which neither career maintenance, nor advancement can occur. What could possibly go wrong? Well, exploitation and corruption for one, given that science remains a rigidly hierarchical institution. Capitalism leads to bad science, for another, in the form of fake or fudged data. Recall that astrology was the bread that fed the astronomer. Those reasons should be enough, but there are more.
Take a common point of contention in scientific writing. Over recent years, many scientists have insisted on using first person pronouns, even singular. The claim is that passive voice is cumbersome and therefore active voice should take precedence. This view is correct in some areas of academic research and writing in general, but scientific tracts should use the first person sparingly. Scientific truths have little to do with the scientist; introducing the latter with the first person 1) implies a bias; 2) is there for the purpose of personal promotion, and not for stylistic concerns.
Why is science, in all its nobility, reduced to capitalism*? The most common answer is scarcity, leading to a justification of the winner-take all philosophy in a ruthless system. And I am not an economist but if we could simply sit and ponder science’s place in the balance of supply and demand. If science positions are scarce, it should be because demand is scarce. Yet, how can demand be scarce, when the questions to answer are near infinite? As far as I can tell, the supply is scientists and the demand is how much money society allocates to their endeavors. What if we could plot demand as unanswered questions, even if these are weighted by some coefficient of importance or urgency (such as, these days, a Covid vaccine)? The key is to stop looking at science as a commodity. It does not live in that space. It may prompt spin-offs and cool products and technological development, but that is not its primary purpose and forcing it, and its practitioners into a capitalist framework compromises both. This argument about the supply and demand curve of science may be simplistic, but I invite others who are more qualified in these matters to offer their viewpoints.
Scientists spend years earning their title. Few come out of scientific training without considerable, specialized skills, but even fewer come out with sure job prospects. We pump money into programs encouraging children to go into “STEM” fields, with this bizarre notion that our kids will do better with such degrees. Yet, with the system as it is, we probably shouldn’t encourage our children to pursue STEM degrees. It does not ensure job security.
Today, in my mailbox, I received a call to sign a petition to change things, to ask for a reprieve from the professional uncertainty that so many scientists live with. We wait with our hands on our hearts for a contract, for tenure, to decide how to organize our research given the time we are allotted; to manage our personal lives, our partners, whether or when to have children, or to look for real estate. We wonder if we should ever use our academic email addresses, or whether our visa will be approved, or whether we should stay quiet when we are exploited, because we have no security. And this to date seems to be the price we pay for doing something we love. And that needs to change.
When I have a chance to think, I wonder, what could I do with the cognitive space that professional security would allow me? What would it feel like to concentrate solely on my work, with respect to my work? What about you?
The petition is for Switzerland. But I invite everyone to consider the thesis above and dare to smash the idol of capitalism in science.
**Capitalism is not an absolute evil. But it is an enemy of science.