Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science: the impact of professionalization, peer-review, and Big Science

Abstract

Scientific realists have suggested that changes in our scientific communities over the course of their history have rendered those communities progressively less vulnerable to the problem of unconcieved alternatives over time. I argue in response not only that the most fundamental historical transformations of the scientific enterprise have generated steadily mounting obstacles to revolutionary, transformative, or unorthodox scientific theorizing, but also that we have substantial independent evidence that the institutional apparatus of contemporary scientific inquiry fosters an exceedingly and increasingly theoretically conservative form of that inquiry. I conclude that contemporary scientific communities are actually more vulnerable to the problem of unconceived alternatives than their historical predecessors, and I briefly suggest how we might seek to pursue scientific inquiry in a less theoretically conservative way.

The natural selection of conservative science

“…But the most successful of them will be so successful that they will have an out-sized impact on the scientific community. This is especially true when academic competition is fierce, counter to the suggestion from Stanford (2015) that competitive environments dampen risk-taking in science.…”

“…On the other hand, it has been widely argued that the sorts of innovative projects that carry high risks of failure are often those that, when successful, have the greatest scientific impact. Stanford (2015), for example, has argued that transformative, risky science may play a special role in theory change in that it is more likely to yield previously unconceived theories that might lie outside of the scientific mainstream. Thoma (2015) uses 'epistemic landscape' models to argue that the presence of scientists who do innovative research may improve the outcomes of an entire community.…”

“…6 So there are reasons to think that pursuing at least some amount of high risk, high reward science is important to scientific progress, and can lead to great personal reward for scientists. But, as briefly described in the introduction, the current structure of science may promote inherently conservative work (Stanford, 2015;Luukkonen, 2012). I now explore a new potential cause of conservativism in science: selection.…”

“…Funding bodies like NIH have recently introduced grants intended to reverse this perceived trend. 1 Stanford (2015) outlines some of the causal factors potentially implicated in increasing scientific conservativism, including the impact of funding bodies, the role of peer review in publication, the increasing age of new primary investigators (PIs), and severe competition for academic positions which might discourage risk-taking. 2 This paper will explore a different possible cause for trends toward conservatism in science.…”

Geoengineering tensions

“…Although intuitively we might think that 'impactful' research will be somehow radical or revolutionary, this is typically not the case. Work which is too outside the mainstream will be blocked by referees both in publication and funding, and regardless will likely not garner much attention due to being out-ofstep with thriving research programs (Stanford 2015). Although new programs certainly emerge, and sometimes achieve band-wagon status, there is a sense in which these production-boosting features of science are not diversity-boosting 10 .…”