This post is also available in Dutch.
Only a few societies can finance solving the critical problems that we face today as a species. Depending on how we coordinate to solve them in the coming decade can make or break the world for generations to come. The most basic but necessary part of the solution is to let scientists do science without bothering them with politics. This article argues to let scientists be young and diverse so that they can innovate with precision.
The case for science.
In 1894, the Times wrote, “In 50 years every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure”. Policymakers planned and replanned policies for years to deal with this ‘Great Manure Crisis’ but all was in vain. However, this problem was solved almost overnight when scientists invented the motor vehicle. Today the world faces numerous such crises of much larger magnitudes. Every time biochemists invent a new vaccine to defeat a variant of influenza, the virus mutates into a stronger variant and spreads again. With traveling being so accessible, it is more likely for such infections to become a pandemic. Thus, biochemists are fighting a never-ending battle against the influenza virus. Such battles are being fought on multiple fronts, such as developing safe and inclusive artificial intelligence amidst an aging population or harnessing disaster-proof nuclear energy against unpredictable oil supplies—each requiring a breakthrough of some kind.
The puzzles scientists face today are far more complex, challenging, and interdisciplinary. Thus, require higher cognitive abilities like cognitive flexibility and working memory. This tends to increase psychological distress, leading to burnout and cognitive dissonance among researchers.
The case for its youth and diversity:
The ambition to tackle new challenges and the strongest problem-solving abilities come together in a young brain. Among humans, information processing peaks at the age of 18, short-term memory at 25, and fluid-intelligence at 40. The connectivity of neurons in the brain also declines with age. Therefore, it might be unsurprising that estimations show that most breakthroughs are produced by scientists in their late 30s.
Keeping science diverse is important for its precision and innovation. The more diverse the scientists are, the more ways in which a theory will be critically reviewed and battle-tested. By recruiting scientists from different backgrounds, a society opens itself to the influx of new knowledge and ideas. During the Cold War, USSR’s scientists, while highly skilled, were isolated and constrained by political ideology. Conversely, the USA had embraced diversity to such an extent that they even recruited rocket scientists from the Nazis. The result was that the USA won the space race by landing the first human on the moon.
Science today is in urgent need of financial support and more workforce. Diverting financial resources from science to address other issues may seem appealing in the short term, but it only postpones problems, which could resurface in different ways to affect society later.
Thus, if it is the responsibility of scientists to innovate, then it is the duty of policymakers not to burden them with politics. Further, it is the responsibility of every individual in society to recognize that governments will rise and fall, policies will come and go, but the impact of science on our lives will last for generations.
Author: Siddharth Chaturvedi
Buddy: Vivek Sharma
Editor: Helena Olraun
Translation: Maartje Koot
Editor translation: Lucas Geelen
