Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Unsustainable Science

2019; Elsevier BV; Volume: 1; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.oneear.2019.08.011

2590-3330

Øyvind Paasche, Henrik Österblom,

Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems

Reaching a more sustainable Earth relies upon the scientific community to generate critical insights and solutions, but we fear that this will not happen to the extent or in the time needed unless science itself becomes more sustainable. Reaching a more sustainable Earth relies upon the scientific community to generate critical insights and solutions, but we fear that this will not happen to the extent or in the time needed unless science itself becomes more sustainable. Good, but busy. Many among our peers in the science community would respond in such a way to queries about how things are going. And such responses carry an awareness of the associated costs. Traditionally tasks have included research and teaching, but today this is augmented by an ever-increasing number of proposals that must be organized, written, and submitted; outreach and interaction with policy makers, industry, and media; and administrative meetings and a seemingly unending stream of email correspondence. Success in science has perhaps never before been so measured, and the explicit demand for more publications—which take a lot of time to produce—exemplifies this. Another way of wording this is that the baselines of what we perceive to be a normal life in science are shifting so fast that we cannot find time to contemplate what the consequences of being busy really are. Here, we argue that the scientific community's collective ability to contribute to society is being undermined by this tendency. We claim that increasing demands have led us on a counterproductive path. Although science, as an intellectual endeavor, mustn't necessarily slow down, it must be allowed to hold focus rather than constantly being told that value, for instance, equates with inflated publication records. We are concerned that an overstretched scientific community will impede the development of sorely needed insight and solutions to the sustainability challenges, as highlighted by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Because how can science ensure, measure, and evaluate scientific progress in our rushed strive for reaching the SDGs, in addition to everything else, unless we re-organize the way we carry out our tasks? The trend in science we describe here arguably emasculates collaborative efforts, which is worrisome given that identifying the right questions and the optimal solutions hinges on our capacity and will to work together across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. In Richard Scarry's widely known children's story "Busytown,"1Scarry R. Busiest People Ever. HarperCollins Publishers, 2014Google Scholar which revolves around a series of anthropomorphic characters, everyone acts according to his or her trade, whether it is the amazing pilot Rudolf von Flugel or the brown bear Miss Honey, who is an accomplished schoolteacher. The character's purpose in life is equated with having something to do rather than doing whatever they can do faster. Whereas Busytown stays busy (in a steady state), the scientific community is on an altogether different path. The foremost trademark appears to be our capacity to gain speed—to become ever busier. There is a sense of social acceleration manifested in our everyday lives. We cope the best we can and partly embrace this trend because we equal increased velocity with value, with what our lives are worth, but there is a caveat. In academia, there is no upper limit to how many papers you can write, submit, or review or how many proposals you can initiate. Success is a moving target compelling you to run faster and faster to keep the goal in eyesight. An increasing number of metrics2Van Noorden R. Metrics: a profusion of measures.Nature. 2010; 465: 864-866Crossref PubMed Scopus (152) Google Scholar allow us to compare with, and envy progress among, our peers. This pandemic trend is not without side effects—plagiarism, false data, and dubious journal outlets are but a few. An overloaded science community might result in short-term efficiency gains but most likely also corresponds to more limited reflection and ability to engage with the complex questions that arise from the SDGs and also time-consuming collaboration with scientists across disciplines, or with actors outside of academia, with unclear payoffs. Rather than thinking that something must yield under the growing pressure, we instead lose out on depth and holistic cross-disciplinarity. A recent report3ElsevierSustainability science in a global landscape.http://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/sustainability-2015Date: 2015Google Scholar from Elsevier observes, for instance, how sustainability science is less interdisciplinary than the world average, which is perhaps counterintuitive to what one might think. We believe this happens despite the fact that publications have a growing number of authors, typically with specialized skills because these tend to be compartmental contributions. We think that this is typically acknowledged within the community but that "publication quickies" still merit effort (Figure 1). This is a constant source of frustration because the world is by definition not a disciplinary place, and as the total number of scientific papers continues to grow, the prospect of a paper becoming superseded increases exponentially.4Parolo P.D.B. Pan R.K. Ghos R. Huberman B.A. Kaski K. Fortunato S. Attention decay in science.J. Informatics. 2015; 9: 734-745Google Scholar The acute awareness of social acceleration among our peers is thus an emergent phenomenon resulting from the rapid growth and global connectivity of the sustainability science community.5West G. Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies and Companies. Penguin Press, 2017Google Scholar, 6Bettencourt L.M.A. Kaur J. Evolution and structure of sustainability science.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2011; 108: 19540-19545Crossref PubMed Scopus (262) Google Scholar An interesting consequence of such acceleration is that our everyday actions become increasingly similar because the external pressure or demand requires researchers to respond more frequently in more predictable ways. For science, as for many creative activities, conformity stalls progress. The increased demands on the science community are thus forcing us to reduce scientific diversity, which results in a loss of flexibility and ability to deal with complexity and change. Consequently, we lower personal resilience, which arguably reduces our overall community resilience. The continued acceleration of science—with demands to be relevant to other communities and industry and presented via a variety of media, with ever-longer lists of administrative tasks, with an increased output of scientific and popular manuscripts, and with proposals for new science projects—needs to be balanced. How? That is, so far, the biggest question few dare put forward. But put it forward we must, again and again, until ground is gained. Because if we do not reach a balance, the way forward will be hard pressed for sustainability. What do you do when you're in a place, a system, or situation with which you disagree but that supports your very presence? Late economist Albert O. Hirschman affords options. In his book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,7Hirschman A.O. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press, 1970Google Scholar he provides the alternatives for "consumers in the face of deteriorating quality of goods." You can remain loyal and keep on consuming (or running)—more (or faster) in our example. You can also opt out, exit, or quit consuming those particular goods. Emigrate. Start a colony, a new society, or a new currency—leave the rest to their struggle. Or, you can voice your opinion, use your consumer power, ask for the manager, or protest. And here is our voice. We see the urgent need to develop alternative metrics, which to a larger degree can capture the actual value of scientific output beyond publications. Metrics can, for instance, track how and when people interact with a scientific article via social media, such as Twitter and LinkedIn, or with policy or other public documents. The ability to quantify value beyond citations by other scientific articles broadens the scope and showcases value and impact outside academia. Alternative metrics are luckily on the rise. New companies such as Altmetric, Meta, and Plumanalytics represent promising approaches where the societal value of a paper can be tracked and appreciated. Although this enhanced traceability will not necessarily reduce the pressure for more output, it might provide the data that can showcase how scientific communities' efforts reach beyond publications. In addition to alternative metrics, the science community is also in need of complementary methods, perhaps some not so novel but in part forgotten. We need to consider approaches other than publishing more and faster if we are to strengthen the communities' resilience and our individual well-being. Acceleration of science is closely tied to the desire to be better and have more resources than others, mirroring how we have organized society and associated hierarchies in university departments. But perhaps the perception of an ideal career, validated by narrowly defined criteria for success, is limiting the inherent diversity of the scientific community. The SDG framework represents a new and profound perspective designed to transform the world in the direction of what we refer to as deep sustainability, favoring "diversity of human ways of life, of cultures, of occupations, of economies," within the capacity of the biosphere.8Naess A. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary.Inquiry. 1973; 16: 95-100Crossref Scopus (1254) Google Scholar The SDGs require scientists to engage in questions such as how to better manage a rapidly transforming ocean, how to reduce global inequality, and how to boost climate action. The competencies in disciplinary departments are not sufficient, and another high-impact paper might not respond to the most pressing need. Consider again Busytown and the diversity of competencies and capacities therein. No one would consider comparing the career of the schoolteacher Miss Honey with metrics developed for the pilot Rudolf von Flugel—they both serve critical functions in their society, and diversity is key for solving complex challenges.9Page S.E. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton University Press, 2008Crossref Google Scholar, 10Grêt-Regamey A. Huber S.H. Huber R. Actors' diversity and the resilience of social-ecological systems to global change.Nat. Sustain. 2019; 2: 290-297Crossref Scopus (41) Google Scholar The survival challenges of our time require novel arenas and time to talk, to test ideas, with scientists from many disciplines and with artists, corporate executives, and kindergarten children. Such new constellations can in themselves generate valuable science. Examples from the history of science illustrate the importance and impact of such diverse arenas. Take, for instance, the 1919 establishment of the German Bauhaus School, which existed until 1933. By embracing societal needs such as housing in the immediate post-war era, Germany sought to solve problems that required the successful blend of diverse fields of competences, such as art, architecture, and design. The Bauhaus School showcased the significance and value of diversified arenas precisely by reconciling broader thinking and skilled experimentation with the urgency of the problems on the ground.11Gabet O. Monier A. Billé R. Blanc M. Curtis L. Fox Weber N. Carron de la Carrière M.-S. Gaillemin J.-L. Mercier M. Quette B. The Spirit of the Bauhaus. Thames & Hudson, 2018Google Scholar The motivation for cultivating new playgrounds should not be driven by the production of high scores via new metrics, which have always been secondary to science. Instead, they should be motivated by the need to move beyond the norms in science and explore alternative ways of engaging with the great challenges of our time while providing an opportunity to reflect on priorities and stimulate creativity. The same deep understanding of how interdisciplinarity can help solve multifaceted issues can be found in the way Bell Laboratories addressed technological challenges such as the construction of the transistor, which is a history that was ridden by failures (and devotion)12Gertner J. The Idea Factory: Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. Penguin Books, 2012Google Scholar until it finally succeeded in 1947. Crafting the transistor took years and years of effort as well as the input of many neighboring disciplines before it eventually reached the market. We question whether the same commitment to solve problems is equally doable in present-day society precisely because the demand for short-term deliverables would stop short any such initiatives. Universities are rapidly developing approaches to investigate and address the global sustainability challenges,3ElsevierSustainability science in a global landscape.http://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/sustainability-2015Date: 2015Google Scholar but are they going to deliver in relation to existing demands? And to what extent are we capable of learning from such diverse experimentation? The South American Institute for Resilience and Sustainability (SARAS) in Uruguay has been described as a place for random encounters and conscious distraction from our everyday work as a means of stimulating creativity and novelty.13Scheffer M. The forgotten half of scientific thinking.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014; 111: 6119Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar The meetings that have taken place between science and art at SARAS have generated insights about the limitations of the human brain14Österblom H. Scheffer M. Westley F.R. van Esso M.L. Miller J. Bascompte J. A message from magic to science: Seeing how the brain can be tricked may strengthen our thinking.Ecol. Soc. 2015; 20: 16Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar and an understanding of the ways of thinking (and the habits) that stimulate creativity and novelty in both science and art.15Scheffer M. Bascompte J. Bjordam T.K. Carpenter S.R. Clarke L.B. Folke C. Marquet P. Mazzeo N. Meerhoff M. Sala O. Westley F.R. Dual thinking for scientists.Ecol. Soc. 2015; 20: 3Crossref Scopus (41) Google Scholar Scientists and artists share an intrinsic interest in producing iconic images16Westley F.R. Folke C. Iconic images, symbols, and archetypes: their function in art and science.Ecol. Soc. 2018; 23: 31Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar and for a graphical representation of reality across space and time. In a joint art-science exhibition curated by Ulrike Heine, the tested vulnerability of the Arctic is addressed from contrasting viewpoints. One piece in this exhibition includes the vigorous circulation of water in the polar basin, which brings heat and salt to the high north, as modeled by An Nguyen and Patrick Heimbach at the University of Texas. A more active integration of art in discussions about sustainability of natural and human systems alike is an encouraging development. However, much more can be accomplished through collaborative learning, dialogue, and reflection well beyond communication of scientific results. For instance, one of us (H.Ö.) has engaged in repeated dialogue with Francisco Gazitúa, a Chilean sculptor, and in doing so has learned how to appreciate the scientific material and the challenges associated with developing the patience required for engaging in slow science. Work by this artist includes a rock, millions of years old, hand carved into a sculpture with traditional tools over a period of several years (Figure 2). The kind of reflection that can be generated through interaction between science and art is also stimulated by Accelerator, an experimental and recently established arena for meetings between scientists and artists at Stockholm University (https://acceleratorsu.art/en/start-page/). Accelerator aims to create "a free zone for thinking." Here, scientists are exposed to works of art and are encouraged to use that encounter as a means of slowing down and reflecting on their science. The urgency of the sustainability challenges is increasingly stimulating individual scientists and universities to experiment, create new meeting places and new approaches, and developing novel arenas with room for diverse competencies, distraction, and random encounters.13Scheffer M. The forgotten half of scientific thinking.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014; 111: 6119Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar, 16Westley F.R. Folke C. Iconic images, symbols, and archetypes: their function in art and science.Ecol. Soc. 2018; 23: 31Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar However, it takes time and money to fund, staff, and develop, but once arenas are in place, they are likely to stimulate further replication. We have provided a small number of examples of this development, which we think has only just begun. Many of the existing sustainability arenas are novel, but they are providing a space for the most fundamental of scientific activities: time to think. Despite this, SARAS and Accelerator, or even our two other home institutions—the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research and the Stockholm Resilience Centre—complement existing university structure but still struggle in similar ways with cultivating true interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary science that gets credited equally with more traditional, unidisciplinary approaches. With growing age and recognition, new and experimental arenas can contribute with insights and learnings of how to experiment, what can be achieved, and what to avoid. It is time to develop a comprehensive understanding of how these arenas, critical for both science and sustainability, can survive and thrive. We are committed to both cultivating existing playgrounds and developing new ones because playing is learning, and learning should be playful. Achieving that "playfulness" is dependent on the absence of other trivial demands on science, be they publications or proposal writing. This is critical for the future sustainability of science and our ability to identify creative solutions. We are also committed to learning how to decelerate science and to invoking the experiences of the Bauhaus School and the Bell Laboratories as relevant lessons from which the science community can learn and derive inspiration. We advocate for an improved understanding of how to develop and maintain such arenas. We therefore welcome partners from university centers and institutions who would like to engage in such learning with us. The apparent paradox with which society so struggles is that by asking less of the science community, we can achieve more. Accomplishing deep sustainability requires that life in science decelerate, but there is no obvious formula for reversing the strong trend that presently defines science. However, in promoting collaboration between multiple arenas, we hope that it is possible to identify at least components of such a formula. The existence of free arenas and more time to think will aid us in becoming better individual scientists, and a more diverse community, hopefully with an improved ability to deal with change in an increasingly turbulent reality. H.Ö. received funding from Mistra through a core grant to Stockholm Resilience Centre and additional support from the Walton Family Foundation (grants 2017-693 and 2018-1371 ), the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (grants 2017-66205 and 2019-68336 ), and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (grants GBMF5668.01 and GBMF5668.02 ). Ø.P. received funding from the Research Council of Norway with the project Advanced Climate Education and Research. Ø.P. conceived the original idea, which was developed jointly by Ø.P. and H.Ö. H.Ö. is a member of the SARAS advisory board, member of the board of Race for the Baltic, and chairman of the SeaBOS Fundraising Foundation. Download .pdf (.83 MB) Help with pdf files Document S1. Spanish Translation of This Commentary