The ancient Greek word for school is scholē. Although the word initially meant “leisure,” its meaning eventually evolved to mean “place for discussion”. Interestingly, the word “academy “comes from the Greek word Akadēmeia, which was the name of the grove outside of Athens where Plato taught his students. Although academia has come a long way since Plato’s Republic, written in 375 B.C., academic research has remained the bedrock of progress and innovation in our society for millennia.
Today, research within academia still fuels advancements in medicine, technology, social sciences, and beyond, and we’re not trying to bash school. Skip it sometimes? Sure, but not here to bash it. Learning can be super fun, not to mention super helpful in understanding the world that surrounds us, helping humanity (sometimes) to make wiser decisions that affect our quality of life or simple survival. From climate change (we did say “sometimes”) and space exploration to life sciences and new cures for diseases, academia has been an invaluable facilitator of new insights and scientific discoveries.
However, beneath the surface of prestigious publications and breakthrough discoveries, there are five key challenges in the world of academia that tend to get swept under the rug. Fortunately, the inherent ethos (Greek, right?) and practices of DeSci, or decentralized science, may be able to assist with these challenges in a new era.
1. Publication Bias
Academic journals often favor publishing positive results over negative or inconclusive findings. This cherry-picked bullshit bush just isn’t the scientific process. In many cases, negative findings that discount or throw cold water on mostly accepted concepts are how breakthrough discoveries are made. Or, at the very least, these negative or inconclusive findings help us to consider alternative theses and/or study designs to explore new possibilities while adding unique perspectives to scientific discourse.
When this “publication bias” skews the scientific literature of clinical trials, it also often leads to an overrepresentation of successful studies while leaving potentially valuable, but less “rosy” research in the shadows. At best, this bias distorts our understanding of a particular topic by dismissing negative findings. At worst, publication bias perpetuates false beliefs while hindering our scientific understanding.
2. Reproducibility Crisis
The reproducibility of scientific findings is a cornerstone of the scientific method. However, numerous studies across various disciplines have failed to replicate previously published results. Factors contributing to this crisis include insufficient methodological details, the aforementioned problem of “publication bias”, and inadequate peer-review processes.
For example, in 2011, a study called the Reproducibility Project, led by the Center for Open Science, attempted to replicate 100 studies that were published in top psychology journals in 2008. Along with his colleagues, Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia and co-founder of the Center for Open Science found that only about 39% of the studies yielded significant results upon replication. This study played a critical role in changing the perception that everything published by academia should be unequivocally accepted as valuable.
After the Reproducibility Project gained mainstream attention, similar issues of reproducibility emerged in fields like cancer research and pharmacology, where replicated studies oftentimes failed to confirm initial findings. The study by the Center for Open Science used a crowdsourced mentality and relied on collaboration among scientists to uncover this reproducibility crisis, which was a major step forward in addressing scientific integrity. DeSci parallels this thinking, as crowdsourcing independent researchers and scientific collaboration are also both keystone tenets of the movement.
3. Pressure to Publish (i.e., breakthrough discoveries now please…)
In academia, there’s a “publish or perish” culture that places immense pressure on researchers to continually publish to advance (or keep) their careers. This pressure can incentivize quantity over quality, leading to rushed or incomplete research. The culture of publish or perish can also tempt researchers to engage in unethical practices, such as data manipulation, that contribute to the reproducibility crisis.
The pressure to publish is an academia-wide problem, potentially affecting a wide range of important research. You can imagine how rushed science isn’t ideal when it comes to drug discovery, new treatments, and other facets of clinical care. But beyond the inherit risk of rushing research, the pressure to publish quantity over quality can stifle creativity and discourage risk-taking, hindering genuine innovation and breakthrough discoveries that may take a little time to find.
4. Funding Constraints Often Hinder Breakthrough Discoveries
Ask any researcher about the rigamarole involved in securing funds for research projects. It’s a slog. Not only that. It’s also a slog typically served with disappointment. Grant proposals are routinely rejected, and finding funding has become increasingly competitive, particularly in fields where resources are limited. As a result, researchers may prioritize particular studies more likely to attract funding, rather than pursuing topics based solely on scientific merit or societal significance.
This “funding bias” can divert attention away from pressing issues and impede interdisciplinary collaboration. While funding is another challenge that plagues academia, many DeSci entities allow direct crowdfunding through their DAO, offering an alternative source of funding — for both independent researchers and researchers in academia who can’t source adequate funding. Not to mention, DeSci’s whole gig is supporting interdisciplinary collaboration, making it an ideal source of funding for this type of research.
5. Commercialization of Research
When industry and academia collide, there’s an increased risk of conflicts of interest and the prioritization of profit over public benefit. On one hand, collaborations between academia and industry can help translate scientific discoveries into tangible applications, from cures to human disease to sprays that regrow hair follicles. On the other hand, these joint efforts risk compromising the integrity of research, as profit-driven motives can influence study design, data interpretation, and publication decisions.
We mentioned climate change research as one of the important contributions of academia, which is true, but we also snark-qualified it with “sometimes.” Thing is, oil and gas companies have pumped funding into campuses for decades, and if you think this fossil-fuel funding hasn’t skewed research findings (or, at least, helped dictate what research programs gets funding) you’d be super wrong. If you want to learn more about the risk of industry-funded research, check out Pros and Con Artistry of Industry-Supported Research Funding.
Academic research is a major component to human progress. However, it’s imperative to acknowledge the inherent problems that can undermine the credibility of academic-controlled research. In an ideal world, the DeSci movement can work hand-in-hand with academic institutions, helping to foster a culture of transparency, accountability, and inclusivity to streamline efforts to make breakthrough discoveries
However, much like the Center for Open Science blew the whistle on a very real reproducibility crisis in academia, DeSci can work as a check on power, helping to ensure that all research, whether conducted by academia, industry, national institutes, or independent researchers, is designed to serve the common good — and not contrived for profit or prestige. With some collective efforts and sustained vigilance, we can overcome these challenges and unlock the full potential of scientific discovery in a new era.
1 Comment
Comments are closed.