Spotlight: Even “Science” is Agenda-Driven
A case for healthy skepticism about “science”
Success in academia is achieved only with a good knowledge of “the game” that researchers must play. Publishing research papers is a fact of life for academic researchers. The number of papers and the prestige of the journals that publish them are the yardstick by which success of academics, especially up-and-coming academics, are measured. The longstanding reputation in academia to “publish or perish” lives strong. The most successful researchers have high paper output, and their studies are published in the journals with the strongest reputations.
There is a codependency in which the researchers depend on the journals to help their careers and the journals depend on the researchers to generate high quality papers. The reputations of scholars are built on the reputations of the journal in which they publish. Obviously, all academics benefit most from being published in the most esteemed journals.
The more reputable the publication, the more influence that publication has. Influence is power. Power corrupts.
The research world is competitive. Most of the money supporting academic research comes from government grants, which will not be awarded to researchers who are not supporting the current trending research topics. On the surface, the process for winning a government award to fund research involves responding to a solicitation for proposals by writing and submitting a compelling research proposal for review by the funding agency. The “science” is supposed to be what matters, but often it is relationships that matter most. Networking is essential. Who you know often matters more than the science.
It is a game, you see. There are explicitly defined rules that one must follow and there are unwritten rules that the successful researcher must learn. Dr. Patrick T. Brown published this linked article last September in which he discussed the strategies that a researcher must necessarily employ if he or she wishes to be published in the most “prestigious” journals. It is this article that we spotlight today.
Dr. Brown published an August 2023 paper in the renowned journal Nature entitled “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California.” Publishing in Nature is a big deal for any researcher. Researchers around the world pay attention to the science published here, as do media organizations who then base some of their reporting on the published science.
Dr. Brown recognized that he must play “the game” if he wanted to successfully get his paper published in Nature. The following quotes highlight how “the game” is hurting the public:
“The editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives – even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge.”
“Climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about… urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change.”
“In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value. In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly.”
“Besides, many mainstream climate scientists tend to view the whole prospect of, say, using technology to adapt to climate change as wrongheaded; addressing emissions is the right approach. So the savvy researcher knows to stay away from practical solutions.”
Strategies for Publishing Climate Change Papers
The first strategy that Dr. Brown employed to help his chances of getting published was to exclude very important factors that contribute to wildfire behavior, such as poor forest management and the startling number of wildfires ignited by humans. Why exclude these factors that would provide a more useful analysis? Because it does not “support the mainstream narrative.” Dr. Brown notes that it is the “norm for high-profile research papers” to frame them in such a way that the influence of climate change is “unrealistically considered in isolation.”
The second strategy is to ignore or downplay “practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.” Dr. Brown explains that studying “how we have been able to achieve success so that we can facilitate more of it” should be a priority. But solutions don’t “rouse the public – or the press.” Problems do. So, “the game” results in published “science” that is kind of skewed, doesn’t it?
The third strategy is to “generate the most eye-popping numbers.” Of course, this strategy is employed across journalism as well, so it is not surprising that these tendencies are prevalent in scientific publications. Dr. Brown explains that using more sensational metrics improves publication chances over “simple, intuitive” metrics that would be more meaningful to a larger audience. “Less intuitive” metrics are “more difficult to translate into actionable information.” But without the sensationalized metrics, the study is less likely to be picked up by the media.
Dr. Brown discusses some of the standard practices in climate change research publication, which included assessments of societal impacts over centuries while disregarding technological and societal changes that have taken place during that time. He notes that “it is standard practice to calculate impacts for scary hypothetical future warming scenarios that strain credibility while ignoring potential changes in technology and resilience that would lessen the impact. Those scenarios always make for good headlines.” He goes on to explain, “A much more useful analysis would focus on changes in climate from the recent past that living people have actually experienced and then forecasting the foreseeable future… while accounting for changes in technology and resilience.”
Discouraging the “Whole” Truth
Interpreting Dr. Brown’s message, it is clear that only a part of the true story is being published. The part being published is established by the agenda of the publishers and reviewers. How important is the rest of the story? Dr. Brown explained that his paper should have considered “the impact of climate change in conjunction with anticipated reforms to forest management practices over the next several decades.” The current research from his team suggests that these anticipated reforms “could completely negate the detrimental impacts of climate change on wildfires.” Dr. Brown explains that this kind of truthful analysis is “discouraged” because it weakens the narrative that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced. Discouraging (i.e., rejecting) scientific papers that do not align with the preferred narrative seems a lot like censorship, does it not?
One final quote from Dr. Brown:
“I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and reviewers of the journals I was targeting.”
Please let that sink in.
This is not a system that promotes honesty and authenticity.
Today, Nature published an article entitled “Largest post-pandemic study finds trust in scientists is high.” Pictured in that article is a young lady holding a sign that reads “Science = FACT” (We challenge that, at best, “Science = Only Part of the Facts”). Nature is actually publishing propaganda to support their dishonest practices. Sorry, Nature, but we see through this. Many scientists are at the mercy of your agenda-driven “peer review” and publishing practices. This is a systemic problem and publications such as Nature are abusing their power over academic research to promote an agenda.
The obvious question that arises is: If we cannot fully trust one of the most eminent scholarly journals, who can we trust? This truly is a massive problem for our society.
Bringing it Home
Science is supposed to be about discovering the truth. Scientific rigor demands the use of best scientific practices as well as honest reporting of the findings of scientific studies. The truth that science reveals should then be used by society to make things better. Dr. Brown had to publish for the sake of succeeding in his career and he had to play “the game” in order to be published. The unwritten rules of “the game” dictated that he omits the “most valuable knowledge for society” if he was to be successful in his career. So, he did what he had to do. How many others have been forced to do the same?
“The game” is influencing the truth that society is permitted to access. As a result, the public is getting played by “the game.”