Today’s post is written by Sheeva Azma, creator of Fancy Comma, a website with a dual mission of serving clients in the scientific communication space and training scientists to communicate better. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Ivory Embassy.
Long hours, unequal treatment, toxic lab culture: these are things scientists have complained about for decades. That’s not even to mention the barriers facing women and marginalized communities in the scientific realms, which I learned about writing biographies of women and African-Americans in science.
Consider, for example, the following data points: Barbara McClintock, who won the Nobel Prize in 1983 for her study of corn genetics, almost didn’t go to college at all because her mom thought it would make her “unmarriageable.” Black scientist George Washington Carver was admitted to college, but then, when he showed up, was denied entry due to his race.
Science graduate programs didn’t even admit women to PhD programs; if they did, they could opt out of granting a PhD after they’d completed all of their schooling. Consider the example of Mary Whiton Calkins, who completed all of the requirements to obtain a PhD in Psychology at Harvard University, which then refused to grant her the degree because she was a woman. (Despite all of that, Calkins actually ended up serving as president of the American Psychological Association in 1905.)
Even women scientists who worked the system and got their PhD have been historically undermined. Rosalind Franklin’s work on the X-ray crystallography of the DNA double helix was famously passed off to two scientists who won the Nobel Prize for it.
That’s already a lot of examples…and I could go on…but that’s not to mention all of the people who never got to pursue science because of systemic inequalities. We can really never know the true scope and impact of systemic inequality on science, both in terms of the discoveries it made impossible by shutting people out of science, but also in terms of the individual lives that toxic science culture ruined.
What can we do to improve toxic science culture?
My own entry to science as a research assistant was punctuated by memories of people bemoaning the careers of those who, faced with no other real career options, did postdoc after postdoc, working a grueling 12 hours a day for relative peanuts.
At this point, you might be wondering: Is there anything we can do about toxic science culture?
Scientists, the answer to this problem may surprise you. Toxic science culture persists, at least in part, because we do not rigorously and systematically study the way we do science. We do not introspect on our activities as scientists at all. We just follow our protocols despite all odds and sacrifice way too much in the process because to do otherwise is to abandon the broken system we are used to in which people have unfairly sank or swam for centuries.
Is it really any surprise, then, that improving toxic science culture involves the scientific study of the scientific enterprise? Yes, that is a real field, and it is called “science of science.”
What is the “science of science”?
The term “science of science” was first discussed in the US as a driver of science policy by Jack Marburger, who served as a science advisor for President George W. Bush. In a 2005 speech to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Marburger called for a “social science” of science.
Broadly speaking, science of science is a collection of social science disciplines which can explain science in sociological, economic, or other terms. For example, research in the field of science of science can examine the economics of science by focusing on economic factors influencing research and innovation, including funding mechanisms and models, and their effects on scientific output and quality. Understanding incentive structures and the ways they impact career advancement, publication practices, and reward systems in science can help align incentives properly for high-quality research, which is more inclusive of the society it is supposed to serve. The relationship between science, innovation, and economic growth can also help create effective science policies.
There’s also sociology of science, part of the science of science, which we’ll talk about next. Sociology examines the ways that people interact with each other and the social institutions that shape their behavior. Sociology of science therefore examines how social factors influence scientific research and knowledge production.
Looking to the sociology of science to improve science culture
“Science doesn’t happen in a vacuum,” as I like to say. At Fancy Comma, we’ve written a lot about sociology of science, especially given that we have one scientist (me!) and one sociologist (Kelly) on staff. In fact, we co-authored this explainer blog on sociology of science.
Key aspects of sociology of science include looking at the social structure of scientific communities, including hierarchies, networks, and institutions that shape research practices. Sociology of science also examines scientific norms and culture. It can also introspect on power dynamics in science, such as the graduate student-advisor relationship or even of influential scientists in relation to their departments and science as a whole. Understanding power and authority as it operates in science can help address issues of bias, discrimination, and unequal access to resources.
A concept called “positionality” is important in sociology. Positionality refers to the social and political context that shapes a person’s identity based on factors like race, gender, class, sexuality, and ability. Reflecting on positionality can help understand perspectives and biases when conducting research or interacting with others; it emphasizes that everyone has a unique “position” within social hierarchies, which impacts how they perceive science and engage with it.
What are some practical applications of “science of science” to science culture?
Studying the “science of science” can help understand why underrepresented minorities get less grant funding, have fewer publications, and are less likely to be cited than their white counterparts. It can also shed light on sexism in science by creating a systematic way to examine power structures in science. Introspecting on the social structure of science can also help scientists figure out better ways to model science as a process to fit better with society.
Crucial improvements through science of science
Understanding the science of science can lead to several crucial improvements in scientific practice:
- Enhanced research quality: By identifying factors that contribute to robust and reproducible research, we can improve the overall quality of scientific output.
- Increased efficiency: Analyzing research processes can help streamline scientific workflows and reduce the waste of resources.
- Improved collaboration: Understanding social dynamics in science can lead to more effective collaborative practices and knowledge sharing.
- Better resource allocation: Insights from the economics of science can inform more efficient funding strategies and resource distribution.
- Addressing biases: Recognizing and mitigating various forms of bias in scientific practice can lead to more equitable and diverse research environments.
- Evidence-based policies: Insights from the science of science can inform evidence-based policies to support and advance scientific research.
Understanding the science of science can accelerate discovery, improve collaboration, and ensure that scientific research translates effectively into real-world applications and policies.
